Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[zee_four]

3 hours ago, clueliss said:

The more technical term for pretending that everything is fine, is “masking” - and I do that all the danged time.  It’s quite easy to put on a fake smile and fake it.  Because my base reaction is “no no, help not needed here, move along”

 

Definitely! I have Bipolar 1 with psychotic mania and have spent a few stretches involuntarily committed into psych wards. When I'm peak manic, I'm completely out of my mind trying to jump off 7th floor lanais, walk on the top of narrow bridges over rocky rivers, barefoot in the snow walking up and down the road in the mountains for some reasons that's only super intense and important to me that I never remember when I eventually wake up days later in the psych ward after having to have been shot up with a bunch of sedatives because I'm that out of it.

It was hell to deal with growing up because even though my first suicide attempt was at a 11 and completely out of nowhere minors weren't diagnosed with Bipolar 1 then even after they put me on an SSRI and I, at 12, went so manic I didn't sleep for 3 weeks, I ran away from home and wound up in the county youth center. All through high school I had the crazy highs and lows and lost so many friends because of them. I eventually turned to hard drugs by 16, with coke my high was less extreme than my manic episodes, the low less low, and I knew when I'd go up and come down. It was the closest I had to control, bingeing on coke. Before long opiates came along and they were the first thing to calm me down. 

I bounced from treatment center to treatment center at first, when I was like 13-15 I thought a doctor would have an answer and could help me. I spent more time in the county youth center, had countless therapists, but they mostly focused on CBT which made me feel more broken because I had no reason that I suddenly wanted to die and when I was on my way up, there was no reason and there was nothing I could just think about to calm down. By 16 I was like fuck this, It wasn't until I was 19 and the 7th floor balcony episode happened and my dad and brother had to tackle me and bring me to Tripler Army Hospital where I kicked a 300 lbs marine in the face and woke up in literal hell 4 days later (Never go to a military psych ward while in the middle of a horrific war, they had guys with the worst PTSD coming through and getting "just" "better" enough to be sent back for another tour. The things I saw and heard there, holy shit.) 

After 8 years where I just damaged all the people I was friends with and the situations I was in etc. I had a diagnosis. But then it was another 6 years to find meds that worked and that was during my first arrest.

I do sometimes wish I was 10 years younger and could have been diagnosed properly when it first came up and my life might not have been the shit show it became. When I was pregnant with my son I definitely had a lot of reoccurring problems but I was on probation and was afraid if I opened up, one I wouldn't get answers like was the norm for over a decade, and instead I'd wind up in a psych ward with my child taken from my custody completely off the bat. My fiance at the time was abusive when he was drunk which became more and more frequent. He even said after he broke my arm if I called the police I'd end up in jail and not him and he was absolutely right.

But I still take ownership. I don't blame doctors or my mom or my teachers for not ensuring that I had the right therapist and the right medication without me even requesting it. I take ownership for the bad attitude I developed as a teen that didn't help. I won't blame anyone else for not diagnosing me properly when the diagnosis was very rare and officially not supposed to be for minors. It was a shitty situation but it's not the fault of everyone else, or really even my fault completely either, at least through my diagnosis. After that I take responsibility for being shitty about my meds, I hated them they made me sick or feel awful and I'd stop taking them. Yes i was jaded and afraid they'd never find a med that worked and I was permanently broken, but I had to step up and be involved and ask for help. It's a hard lesson to learn, I was in my early 20s when I first was exposed to it and didn't really own it until years later. You have to be proactive, you can't blame other people for your problems or expect them to read your mind and do all the heavy lifting. It's like sobriety. You have to want it, no matter how hard that is. If you're not doing that, you definitely can't blame other people.

As another BIPOC I know how difficult it is to get psychiatric treatment, As someone who has been on and off government benefits most of my life including my childhood, I know how difficult it is to get medical treatment let alone mental health treatment. The only mental health office that took Medicaid (low income and/or disabled health insurance that's like Medicare but far worse, and I am on still today, just under the Medquest program that's individual to the state of Hawai'i_ in the county I grew up in had no psychiatrist and shared a single PNP (psychiatric nurse practitioner) to prescribe meds for a 6 county area in  NW Colorado, so a massive area. And that was when I was an adult, when I was younger, pau, there was nothing.

As someone who is now an addiction counselor and halfway through my masters in social work to become an LCSW and provide more mental health services in addition to substance abuse treatment, I'm all about advocating for access when you have the platform.

But for MM to complain about how she was purposely left to flounder and implying that the BRF didn't help her or care for her on purpose because they dislike her or they're racist... that's just so disingenuous to the causes she claims to support. Anyone of the working class BIPOC with mental health issues would kill to have resources for mental and physical healthcare like her. Part of mental health is owning your own actions though. You have to take the initiative to find help, you can't just expect it to show up. I'm not saying it's easy at all no matter your income level, but so many more disenfranchised BIPOC and even non BIPOC manage this with limited resources that are hard to access all the time. For her to try to be the darling leader of the cause she's really setting a poor example and it's just another of her blind to her privilege, whining that people can't read her mind and serve her to the level she demands, etc.

It'd be just another celeb snark but then she goes and positioners herself as some kind of leader for low income BIPOC to access mental health care while which is why her continued lies, half truths, diversion, attempts to change and control the narrative, is even worse when it's involving these issues she claims to be the next Bill and Melinda Gates or Princess Di about and she's just making a mockery of the plight of so many that are so much less fortunate than her that she claims solidarity with while whingeing like a born and bred upper crust spoiled brat. I'm not trying to be harsh towards her mental health issues but towards the way she has latched on to the mental health care issue for low income and/or BIPOC, making a mockery out of yet another serious issue that doesn't need her BS that harms not helps the very cause she claims to been Queen of Leadership and Generosity towards. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by zee_four

[EmCatlyn]

I just saw the results of an informal online poll (MSNBC) where more than 75% of respondents felt that the UK taxpayers should pay for Harry and his familly’s security when they visit the UK. (The poll actually used the words UK “Taxpayer” instead of Home Office or Met, or UK Police department.)

This kind of poll means very little since respondents are self-selected and don’t represent a balanced demographic. It’s just whoever felt like answering after reading a brief article about Harry’s concern that he and his family won’t be safe. However, I would guess that most who answered the question were not UK citizens or residents.  It is always easiest to think that someone else should pay taxes.

My other thought was that most of the news coverage seems to see this as an either-or proposition: either Harry and his family always get protection or he will not come back to the UK.  This perspective seems to echo the way Harry has framed the issue.

However, I could see a compromise position where Harry and Meghan and the kids are promised protection for specific visits based on the risk level and what they will be doing.  For example, it is likely that they would have protection if they go to the UK to participate in Jubilee celebrations. (Harry got protection for the much smaller, low-key funeral of Prince Phillip.) 

I wonder if this has been discussed and Harry and Meghan have turned it down.

[MomJeans]

In order to compromise, the royal family would have to have the ability to offer something. 

It was a decision by the government.  

I think the government sees this as a much bigger issue than Harry or even the Royals, with possible massive repercussions.  I'm guessing that it will fight this for that reason.

I'm not sure what the current popular view is in the UK regarding this issue.  My guess is that many would be more concerned about the precedent, not the costs.  But I could be flat-out wrong.

Again, I'm probably outlier.  For a lot of reasons, I could accept Harry getting security, but I would grant it currently based on his familial relationship to the next King and his recent work as a royal family member, but not for a lifetime.  And even I struggle with it, because I completely understand the Home Office's viewpoint on this. And I chafe at Harry's statement, because it appears to be a royal demand (do this or else!), which is not how the royals and the government work in the 21st century. 

It's all just really sad.  I could see this driving a further wedge between everyone, and I wish they could find some middle ground.

Edited January 24, 2022 by MomJeans

[Coconut Flan]

If Anne only gets Met security for official business, it's really tough to try to justify it for Harry. 

[zee_four]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

If Anne only gets Met security for official business, it's really tough to try to justify it for Harry. 

And to be honest it's another slap in the face to the "poor" they seem to frame themselves as advocates for. I get that obviously as public figures they do have threats us Average Joes and Joesettes don't and don't begrudge that need. But they can and do pay for the best private security but somehow that's "not good enough" and they want the special government services that -working- royals have. From what I understand in the UK you can't hire the Met or what have you, so that offer to pay is disengenious (I havent used that word in my real life in awhile yet I feel like every post I make about MM and H I use it at least once.) and it would be a service offered by taxpayers of the UK who MM and H don't do anything for but cause their own drama and whinge about. It doesn't match MMs claim of growing up a low income BIPOC and now everything she does is understanding our plight and advocating for in our interests. I know I always point that out but her attempts to use real issues that effect real disenfranchised people end up being a joke and in turn makes these issues seem like a joke to those who we need to get on our side to help. 

[viii]

11 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

If Anne only gets Met security for official business, it's really tough to try to justify it for Harry. 

I agree with this but Harry also has a level of fame that Anne does not, and therefore probably has a lot more threats towards him and his family than she does. 

[DalmatianCat]

11 minutes ago, viii said:

I agree with this but Harry also has a level of fame that Anne does not, and therefore probably has a lot more threats towards him and his family than she does. 

But we don’t know that Harry is actually getting threats that necessitate the protection he’s asking for. The threat he refers to was paparazzi and for all we know his security team would never let that same faux pas happen again (or they should be rightly fired). I’m guessing the Met police aren’t getting intel that says Harry is getting kidnapping threats when he wants to run out for fish and chips or they would take appropriate measures. They don’t want anything to happen to Harry, Meghan, Archie, or Lilibet either.

I wonder if Harry is annoyed that he no longer gets intelligence briefings (if he ever did…I’m not sure what his security clearance was before and what it would be now).

[HerNameIsBuffy]

30 minutes ago, viii said:

I agree with this but Harry also has a level of fame that Anne does not, and therefore probably has a lot more threats towards him and his family than she does. 

I agree.  I think his demands are unreasonable, but I don't understand when people compare him to other senior royals with a far less public presence.  Anne is probably well known in the UK, but most of the world probably has no idea who she is and wouldn't recognize her if they tripped over her.

[FluffySnowball]

58 minutes ago, viii said:

I agree with this but Harry also has a level of fame that Anne does not, and therefore probably has a lot more threats towards him and his family than she does. 

True, and even Anne was in a kidnapping situation once when someone got into her car (in the early 80s maybe) or something along those lines. Also, regarding the Queen (who’s even more “famous” than her daughter and grandson, of course), she’s had quite a few attempted break ins (I don’t mean break ins targeting her estates but her personally) and there was even a man who got to her and was in her bedroom at one point. Uff… that’s stuff for nightmares IMO. 

It’s quite possible Harry is overreacting and doesn’t need as much security as he asks for. Still, the thought that I, my spouse or my children might get hurt or kidnapped would drive me crazy, too. 

Also, how would the government and the BRF react in case one of their members actually got kidnapped? They’d have to pay, right? I mean, they’re so filthy rich, they might be a prime target I assume. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’d sure like to enjoy their their wonderful robes and jewelry, but I’m glad I don’t have to deal with their problems. 

[TN-peach]

1 hour ago, DalmatianCat said:

But we don’t know that Harry is actually getting threats that necessitate the protection he’s asking for. The threat he refers to was paparazzi and for all we know his security team would never let that same faux pas happen again (or they should be rightly fired). I’m guessing the Met police aren’t getting intel that says Harry is getting kidnapping threats when he wants to run out for fish and chips or they would take appropriate measures. They don’t want anything to happen to Harry, Meghan, Archie, or Lilibet either.

I wonder if Harry is annoyed that he no longer gets intelligence briefings (if he ever did…I’m not sure what his security clearance was before and what it would be now).

Right. It seems as though he wants Met protection from paparazzi not from criminal elements.  If the Met received intelligence that there was a threat against Harry or his family, then they would provide protection.  If Harry part of an official royal event (Prince Phillip's funeral last year or the Jublilee this year), he will receive Met protection.  Just not for any private trips unless there is a threat. And the Met (unlike Harry) doesn't consider the press/paparazzi a threat.

 

[EmCatlyn]

14 hours ago, MomJeans said:

In order to compromise, the royal family would have to have the ability to offer something. 

It was a decision by the government.  

I think the government sees this as a much bigger issue than Harry or even the Royals, with possible massive repercussions.  I'm guessing that it will fight this for that reason.

I'm not sure what the current popular view is in the UK regarding this issue.  My guess is that many would be more concerned about the precedent, not the costs.  But I could be flat-out wrong.

Again, I'm probably outlier.  For a lot of reasons, I could accept Harry getting security, but I would grant it currently based on his familial relationship to the next King and his recent work as a royal family member, but not for a lifetime.  And even I struggle with it, because I completely understand the Home Office's viewpoint on this. And I chafe at Harry's statement, because it appears to be a royal demand (do this or else!), which is not how the royals and the government work in the 21st century. 

It's all just really sad.  I could see this driving a further wedge between everyone, and I wish they could find some middle ground.

The thing is that Harry did get UK police protection when he was there for Phillip’s funeral.  So presumably, if he and his family came to the UK for an “official” purpose, such as the Jubilee, there would be justification for protection also.

A “compromise” might be that they get protection this one time for this specific event. (In this case the Jubilee, but on another occasion it might be the queen’s funeral.)  It is not unreasonable that there will be some threats to the Sussexes, given their high profiles, during the Jubilee.  It may be that Harry and Meghan would have gotten protection for a Jubilee visit even if Harry had not made a fuss. (The kids should be with their parents and shouldn’t need separate protection.)

Another “compromise” might be that Harry pays for additional private security from someone with a good working relationship with the Met. If Harry has someone on his team whom the Met trusts, they might communicate and cooperate and come up with a good plan.

Lastly, as we have discussed here, Harry’s relatives who have protection could “share” it with him, by meeting him at the airport, driving with him to whatever royal estate he is going to, etc.

There are, in other words, compromise solutions possible that would not require that either the Home Office give in to Harry’s demands or Harry decide never to visit England again. (Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.) 

And honestly, unless this is just a calculated power move from Harry, he really needs a better shrink.  Life is full of risks, even if you are not a royal.

[MomJeans]

6 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

"The thing is that Harry did get UK police protection when he was there for Phillip’s funeral.  So presumably, if he and his family came to the UK for an “official” purpose, such as the Jubilee, there would be justification for protection also."

Mom Jeans:  If the statements of former bodyguard is to be believed, it wasn't that Harry was there for an official purpose that warranted protection, but that the threat assessment determined that Phillip's Funeral, in particular, and some of its attendees, in particular, were likely terrorist targets for that specific event.  So just being an official event is not enough to warrant protection.  The Jubilee public events could likely be classified the same, so protection will likely be offered, but if say the Sussexes come for the next balcony appearance of the Trooping of the Color, they won't receive protection just because it's an official event.  

"A “compromise” might be that they get protection this one time for this specific event. (In this case the Jubilee, but on another occasion it might be the queen’s funeral.)  It is not unreasonable that there will be some threats to the Sussexes, given their high profiles, during the Jubilee.  It may be that Harry and Meghan would have gotten protection for a Jubilee visit even if Harry had not made a fuss. (The kids should be with their parents and shouldn’t need separate protection.)"

Mom Jeans:  Personally, I don't think the government is going to negotiate trip by trip, because it creates a bureaucratic millstone.  But that's just my opinion.  Moreover, it appears that the government already has a brightline rule in effect, without negotiation, that covers this: if there is credible and specific intelligence that Harry/his family are targets on U.K. soil, they will receive protection for that specific threat while on U.K. soil.  

"Another “compromise” might be that Harry pays for additional private security from someone with a good working relationship with the Met. If Harry has someone on his team whom the Met trusts, they might communicate and cooperate and come up with a good plan."

Mom Jeans:  To me, from Harry's own words, it's the government intel itself that is demanded, and that can't be shared no matter which private contractors he hires.  If the Met shared any security info or intel with a private contractor, that would very likely be a violation of U.K. law, and it would almost certainly violate the U.K.'s shared intelligence agreements with other countries, which are significant sources for their threat assessments. 

IMHO, that's likely the entire issue: the intelligence Harry believes he is owed is highly confidential, and his private employees have no right to it, even if they hypothetically used to be Met affiliated.  And no matter what, private contractors cannot have guns, even if they were formerly police officers, which I think is also part of Harry's demands.  

"Lastly, as we have discussed here, Harry’s relatives who have protection could “share” it with him, by meeting him at the airport, driving with him to whatever royal estate he is going to, etc."

Mom Jeans:  I personally would be extremely troubled to have the Met police officers/bodyguards viewed or treated as serfs that can be shared with others for personal reasons, and I think it would be insulting to them to be used in this way. But I am aware it's being reported that Charles has made this "offer" to H&M.  

Their job is to guard and protect their assignments; they don't work for Charles or the other royals.  JMO.  If Charles wants to host his son's family at Highgrove that's one thing- royals can certainly have guests, but to follow his son around London to "provide" protection is another. 

IMHO, I also don't that the Sussexes would be agreeable to that arrangement as a solution to their demands, though if they lose this fight, it's the only possibility left. (I also have a strong feeling that H & M won't want to give Harry's relatives complete access to their comings and goings while in town.)  In order to leave the royal estates with Met protection, H & M would need to drag a protected royal with them every time they left. It may work for a single visit to introduce Lilibet though.

. . . . 

My thoughts are included in bold in the quote above- sorry, formatting it quote by quote wasn't working.

[EmCatlyn]

@MomJeans wrote:

Quote

Mom Jeans:  If the statements of former bodyguard is to be believed, it wasn't that Harry was there for an official purpose that warranted protection, but that the threat assessment determined that Phillip's Funeral, in particular, and some of its attendees, in particular, were likely terrorist targets for that specific event.  So just being an official event is not enough to warrant protection.  The Jubilee public events could likely be classified the same, so protection will likely be offered, but if say the Sussexes come for the next balcony appearance of the Trooping of the Color, they won't receive protection just because it's an official event.  

Mom Jeans:  Personally, I don't think the government is going to negotiate trip by trip, because it creates a bureaucratic millstone.  But that's just my opinion.  Moreover, it appears that the government already has a brightline rule in effect, without negotiation, that covers this: if there is credible and specific intelligence that Harry/his family are targets on U.K. soil, they will receive protection for that specific threat while on U.K. soil.  

Mom Jeans:  To me, from Harry's own words, it's the government intel itself that is demanded, and that can't be shared no matter which private contractors he hires.  If the Met shared any security info or intel with a private contractor, that would very likely be a violation of U.K. law, and it would almost certainly violate the U.K.'s shared intelligence agreements with other countries, which are significant sources for their threat assessments. 

IMHO, that's likely the entire issue: the intelligence Harry believes he is owed is highly confidential, and his private employees have no right to it, even if they hypothetically used to be Met affiliated.  And no matter what, private contractors cannot have guns, even if they were formerly police officers, which I think is also part of Harry's demands.  

Mom Jeans:  I personally would be extremely troubled to have the Met police officers/bodyguards viewed or treated as serfs that can be shared with others for personal reasons, and I think it would be insulting to them to be used in this way. But I am aware it's being reported that Charles has made this "offer" to H&M.  

Their job is to guard and protect their assignments; they don't work for Charles or the other royals.  JMO.  If Charles wants to host his son's family at Highgrove that's one thing- royals can certainly have guests, but to follow his son around London to "provide" protection is another. 

IMHO, I also don't that the Sussexes would be agreeable to that arrangement as a solution to their demands, though if they lose this fight, it's the only possibility left. (I also have a strong feeling that H & M won't want to give Harry's relatives complete access to their comings and goings while in town.)  In order to leave the royal estates with Met protection, H & M would need to drag a protected royal with them every time they left. It may work for a single visit to introduce Lilibet though.

I read another report that said that what Harry wants is someone with a gun protecting them.  Who knows?

I agree that the intelligence can’t be shared, but a trusted former-Met officer could maybe ask the official people, “There are no big threats in this area that Meghan wants to go shopping in, are there?” and he would probably get an honest answer. This might reassure Harry’s paranoia, if that is the main issue.

As to “sharing” the protection of a regular royal, I wasn’t thinking that they would have, say, Charles, driving around with the Sussexes everywhere the Sussexes want to go so they would have Royal Protection. That would not be okay, both from the use of the UK paid security and the fact that the working royals might have work or plans of their own.

 I was thinking that if the Sussexes are just coming on a “family visit” to a place where there are working royals, then Harry’s fears could be allayed by someone (Charles or Camilla or Kate) meeting the Sussexes at the airport and then seeing them off at the end of their visit.  That’s not unreasonable—it’s a thing any family might do (meet relatives at the airport) and as a once a year sort of thing would not be something that burdened royal security or the public purse. 

The problem, of course, would be that Harry and Meghan wouldn’t want to stay on a quiet family visit.  I am pretty sure that they would want to be “free” to go places, and that, of course, would not be possible with the kind of security they want,

As far as the Jubilee goes, I can’t imagine there aren’t going to be plenty of terrorist threats for such an event.  So I would think Scotland Yard should just plan on security for everyone who might attend. 😉

Seriously, I guess what I am saying is that there are possible solutions/compromises that ought to reassure Harry.  He can’t have everything he wants.  The question is whether he is going to choose indefinite self- exile or adjust his expectations/demands.

[MomJeans]

I understand what your saying. I do. I also think the strict gun control in the UK, plus the seriousness of intel confidentiality isn’t really being picked up by the American media either on this. 

If Harry want guards with guns, it has to be the Met protecting him- he can’t get that from private guards.   If he wants guards with intel, it has to be the Met protecting him, because they can’t share.  I think his attempt to compromise was to say he’d pay, hoping the media would focus on his “magnanimous” offer, not the consequences of buying off the government to get his wants.

And although it seems benign, I seriously doubt Charles has ever picked up/dropped off his adult sons at the airport. He doesn’t put his own toothpaste on his own toothbrush.  
 

So if Charles suddenly needs to pick up and drop off Harry at the airport like grandma in a minivan, I just wouldn’t view it as benign, but as a serious lack of judgment for a future King of a modern constitutional democracy. I would see it as Charles views his own highly trained and renowned security as bargaining chips. And that to me is very wrong. Maybe I’m alone in that, and I’m overreaching. But I deeply respect the work and training these officers have, and I think it’s important that they be treated with total respect by the royals who they are expected to take a bullet for. 
 

It seems that both sides are going to fight this, so at least it will be entertaining.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

41 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

He doesn’t put his own toothpaste on his own toothbrush.  

I had no idea Charles was living a double life.  Heir to the throne in the UK and Steve Maxwell in Kansas.

[louisa05]

The toothpaste thing has been debunked multiple times. 
Multiple reliable sources online tell me that the Queen doesn’t get daily intelligence briefings. Why would Harry have ever got them? 
In 2015, there was controversy about Charles getting too much confidential state information which had been standard for the first in line heir since the 1930s. His access was subsequently scaled back. But, sure, Harry, #6, was probably getting intelligence briefings. 
 

[MomJeans]

??? Harry never got intelligence briefings.

But he did have bodyguards whose work was directed by people with intel briefings.

Harry knows he can’t get intel, so he wants Met protection because they do have access to it. And guns. 

[viii]

I think you guys are giving Harry way too much credit LOL

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, MomJeans said:

I understand what your saying. I do. I also think the strict gun control in the UK, plus the seriousness of intel confidentiality isn’t really being picked up by the American media either on this. 

If Harry want guards with guns, it has to be the Met protecting him- he can’t get that from private guards.   If he wants guards with intel, it has to be the Met protecting him, because they can’t share.  I think his attempt to compromise was to say he’d pay, hoping the media would focus on his “magnanimous” offer, not the consequences of buying off the government to get his wants.

And although it seems benign, I seriously doubt Charles has ever picked up/dropped off his adult sons at the airport. He doesn’t put his own toothpaste on his own toothbrush.  
 

So if Charles suddenly needs to pick up and drop off Harry at the airport like grandma in a minivan, I just wouldn’t view it as benign, but as a serious lack of judgment for a future King of a modern constitutional democracy. I would see it as Charles views his own highly trained and renowned security as bargaining chips. And that to me is very wrong. Maybe I’m alone in that, and I’m overreaching. But I deeply respect the work and training these officers have, and I think it’s important that they be treated with total respect by the royals who they are expected to take a bullet for. 
 

It seems that both sides are going to fight this, so at least it will be entertaining.

It is definitely entertaining, but also a little sad.  If my son or daughter told me they didn’t feel safe when they came to visit me, I would be very sad.

I don’t agree that Charles’s deciding to meet his son and grandkids at the airport would be disrespectful to his security.  Presumably Harry would bring his own security and Charles’s security would be there to make it possible for Charles to do something he wants to do (see his grandchildren).  It is no more a frivolous use of hardworking security than the security he would get if he decided to go shopping or visiting a non-royal friend.  It would be disrespectful if Charles told his security to go look after Harry, but not if the security escorted Charles in his limo to wait for Harry and the kids.

As for the rest, I would think Harry could trust the Met to let his security know when they had intel that it wasn’t safe for him to go somewhere, and everyone seems to agree that the Met would provide security if he really needed it, so it seems that Harry is just being paranoid.  (As for the guns, I am not sure they matter to Harry or only to the US press.)🙄

It is all very snark-worthy.

[Coconut Flan]

Netflix and Spotify got tired of waiting on content that didn't arrive.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/395174-prince-harry-and-meghan-in-hot-waters-as-netflix-takes-action-after-spotifys-move

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Netflix and Spotify got tired of waiting on content that didn't arrive.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/395174-prince-harry-and-meghan-in-hot-waters-as-netflix-takes-action-after-spotifys-move

Thanks for posting this link.  Another source with more detail notes that 

Quote

So far, Netflix is waiting for Harry’s “Heart of Invictus” series, according to IMDB, and all Spotify has gotten from its reported $25 million deal with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is a “2020 Archewell Audio Holiday Special,” a 34-minute podcast episode that was released in December 2020. The Spotify episode featured uplifting but anodyne testimonials about coping with life during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The testimonials mostly came from Sir Elton John, James Corden and their other celebrity friends.

Harry and Meghan’s Lack of Output(East Bay Times)

It is interesting that what Spotify and Netflix are doing is advertising for producers to work with the Sussexes.  Presumably these producers will be expected to get the Sussexes to work. 😉

[rosamundi]

5 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

The Spotify episode featured uplifting but anodyne testimonials about coping with life during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The testimonials mostly came from Sir Elton John, James Corden and their other celebrity friends.

Yes, because spending two years living in a mansion with staff to cater to your every whim, regular grocery deliveries and onsite private fitness facilities is sooooooooooo difficult to cope with.

Try being a single mum of three children living in a two bedroom flat on the 20th floor of a tower block with broken lifts and no private outside space, where the council have taped off the play areas in the parks, and you're trying to juggle working from home and homeschooling on inadequate broadband and one laptop between three kids, where you can't afford the additional costs of grocery deliveries (you can't buy exactly the quantities you need, and the really cheap supermarkets don't do home delivery), and you don't have a car so if you go anywhere it's by public transport, with associated extra infection risk.

Uplifting pandemic testimonials. 🙄

(to be clear, I'm not having a go at @EmCatlyn here, I'm reacting to a quote she put in her post and it's attributed these words to her.)

Edited January 26, 2022 by rosamundi
to make clear who I'm having a go at

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, rosamundi said:

Yes, because spending two years living in a mansion with staff to cater to your every whim, regular grocery deliveries and onsite private fitness facilities is sooooooooooo difficult to cope with.

Try being a single mum of three children living in a two bedroom flat on the 20th floor of a tower block with broken lifts and no private outside space, where the council have taped off the play areas in the parks, and you're trying to juggle working from home and homeschooling on inadequate broadband and one laptop between three kids, where you can't afford the additional costs of grocery deliveries (you can't buy exactly the quantities you need, and the really cheap supermarkets don't do home delivery), and you don't have a car so if you go anywhere it's by public transport, with associated extra infection risk.

Uplifting pandemic testimonials. 🙄

(to be clear, I'm not having a go at @EmCatlyn here, I'm reacting to a quote she put in her post and it's attributed these words to her.)

I selected the quote for the same reason you focused on it.  Why the hell haven’t they done more to earn the preposterous amount of money they were paid on the promise that they would have content people would watch?  And why do they seem to think that the only content they can present involves celebrities?

What goes on in their entitled minds?

The next question is what will they do when the money they earned gets spent and there aren’t other lucrative contracts?  Besides the two tell-all biographies Harry plans, what have they got to sell?

I guess we will see them doing commercials at some point. 🙄

(Edited out repetitious sentence.)

Edited January 26, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Style

[TN-peach]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I selected the quote for the same reason you focused on it.  Why the hell haven’t they done more to earn the preposterous amount of money they were paid on the promise that they would have content people would watch?  And why do they seem to think that the only content they can present involves celebrities?

What goes on in their entitled minds?

The next question is what will they do when the money they earned gets spent and there aren’t other lucrative contracts?  Besides the two tell-all biographies Harry plans, what have they got to sell?

I guess we will see them doing commercials at some point. 🙄

(Edited out repetitious sentence.)

Maybe those are the only people they know?! Other than her mother, did Meghan invite any non-celebrities to her wedding? And based on comments at the time, other than her co-stars most to the invited celebrities didn't really know her (Oprah, the Clooneys). 

[just_ordinary]

On 1/24/2022 at 5:13 PM, viii said:

I agree with this but Harry also has a level of fame that Anne does not, and therefore probably has a lot more threats towards him and his family than she does. 

Fame is not necessarily an important factor. If you go for fame there are a couple of hundred more famous (and passionately hated) people in front of Harry. And in her youth Anne definitely was the unloved, prissy princess and pretty famous herself. Not the same scale but that’s just global news cycle/information access and the fact that the younger generation is always more interesting. Being famous for reasons that are not your fault doesn’t mean you are eligible for public funded protection either. That would open the door for thousands of other people that never chased the public eye but are subject to it because they have famous parents. 
I do believe that threats against H&M have a pretty nasty personal note, while the others are more threatened due to their actions royal role (except Charles&Cam and nowadays Andrew). Harry needs to realise that the threshold for police protection if people hate you as as an individual is much higher than if you have an active role in state duty. You might think about it how you will, but that’s the reality. 
The UK government has definitely other problems than these two though. [even though after two years of working from home I never saw the need to socialising face to face with colleagues more and I am definitely in favour for some parts of the uk office booze culture. As soon as I am back working after taking time off after baby nr.2 I will have my own Fizz with Liz scheme.]. They actually might take their eye to the Montecito twats just to deflect from their own train wreck. I highly doubt suing the government is helping. 
 

His example of being chased by paparazzi is not exactly great. That’s different than death threats. And they would very possibly have gotten police protection at important official events. Just because the event is a major target. 
 

I will say, H&M have a hand to get back into the headlines whenever no one is interested in them anymore. I mean, they are not dominating the headlines, people are not that interested and find new stuff to gossip about. Harry is, again, very probably over estimating his importance. He did when he was the all loved “Golden boy” and he does now that they are “the most hated couple in the world”. 

They very probably don’t want to come to the UK. The tabloids and public will talk shit about them. They won’t be able to set a foot right and snub/embarrass/disrespect HMTQ in this important year at every moment. It is not exactly the moment for deep family meetings to work through issues, with everyone out and about to promote the monarchy. And the family is not exactly a warm, forgiving one either. So all in all not a great timing for a first meeting. I will say though, Charles and the Cambridges could have gone and visit them in the last year. Under the strict agreement it stays off the radar. They pulled off a family holiday in Jordan that no one knew about. I don’t think either side is ready to make amends yet. It’s sad, but at least the royals don’t feel the need to play it out publicly though. I mean, I am sure they exploit the H&M clusterfucks to a certain extent. Wiliam and George, mingling with normal people at a game. No protection to spot (or even without allegedly, not sure I believe that). That was probably very much a welcome opportunity.

Edited January 26, 2022 by just_ordinary