Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[Smash!]

Jackie3 is a troll and likes to stir the pot all over FJ. Don‘t feed the troll, it‘s not worth it.

 

[Jackie3]

14 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Was she cuffed to a railing in the nursery? Somehow I don't think so. If she didn't like the job, she could have left. She was not a slave. 

 

It's true. She was a very loyal person and actually seemed to love her charges. 

She really couldn't have married, though. She was expected to live next door to her charges, and dedicate most of her waking hours to their care. She was only able to be married AND hold her job once she was basically just looking after young adult Margaret. Even then, she hinted that the beginning of her marriage was difficult because she had no time to set up her home or spend with her husband.

I would have liked to hear more about how she was evicted. Was it a dignified process or an ugly mess? Crawfie could have made a bundle writing about that, and it would have been a huge PR blow to the royals--the Queen evicting her long-time nanny. But she didn't write about that.

She also didn't release the many letters she had from the Queen, which were found after her death.  Some people think those letters exonerated her from the whole fiasco about the articles. Either way, they would have made her a bundle. Nonroyals can have more class and loyalty than royals, it seems. 

14 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

According to what I understand It’s not about the pay which they admit is not great but the fact that having worked for a Royal looks great on a resume and also,

It's a shame the royals would take advantage of that fact. Especially since they are so fabulously wealthy themselves. A friend was applying for a job at Stanford, and it was the same. The pay was very low because "You can put Stanford on your resume!"  I guess the Royals milk it for all it's worth, even down the pay for their nannies!

[Jackie3]

23 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

The Royal children will have a “normal” Royal life for a modern Royal child. That is their normal and all they will know. 

 

I agree it's their normal. I just don't' think it's particularly healthy. It also doesn't create great parents. Remember how the young Queen -- absent for six months -- greeted five year old Charles? She shook hands with him.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Jackie3

[Four is Enough]

You know a five year old gets enamored of interesting things. Perhaps he wanted to shake hands.

 

[tabitha2]

That’s another thing that became Fact!1! The reality is Anne and he had just been rowed out to them the day before and they had been in almost daily contact through radio the whole trip to boot. 

[prayawaythefundie]

52 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

You know a five year old gets enamored of interesting things. Perhaps he wanted to shake hands.

 

I think, I have seen it on video once and it did look awkward from a modern point of view (and probably from a non-royal point of view back then as well). I can‘t find a video right now, sorry.

That said, Jackie3 seems to enjoy listing     every incident she can find to prove to us the horrible personalities of members of the BRF. I assume she is a very big Harry & Meghan fan and feels they have been treated terribly by the royals (just like Diana), so everyone must know that they‘re all real monsters!!1! 🧟‍♀️
Must be weird living in a world that black & white. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[tabitha2]

And Don’t forget Marion Crawford is a mix of Mary Poppins and Maria Von Trapp forced to live  starving and penniless in a hovel by brutal tyrants

[just_ordinary]

I don’t think there is actually no photo of HMTQ with her great granddaughter. There very well might be one, but if she doesn’t give consent to make it public H&M would be in deep water legally to do so. 
While a professional photographer might have been refused, that’s not saying a picture taking by H with his phone was as well. We rarely see the snaps they take only for private pleasure. So many of their big moments get publicised, they are always done with that in mind. So when the Duchess of Cambridge is credited with the birthday portraits of her children, she might snap lots of photos in private, but what we see is always carefully chosen. 
 

In the end, H&Ms children have no importance for the institution (just like his cousins). The monarch doesn’t need the pics and now that they left the working fold won’t lift a finger to get them. They have also shown a tendency to piggy back in their royal relatives and of revealing private information about them, so it’s no wonder they are hesitating to give them more to use. And why would they even want to bring a professional? If it’s just about meeting and getting the moment captured for yourself that’s certainly not important. Bringing in a professional screams that you want to use the moment publicly for your own gain. Which makes me question what H&M really value. The relationship and the people or how marketable they are.

[tabitha2]

Yeah. The Queen got snaps of then together and gave some to Charles I guarantee  And they will stay in a purse or wallet or on a desk or in scrapbook we will never see or see in documentary in about 30 or so years.

Edited June 15, 2022 by tabitha2

[Jackie3]

 

9 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

There very well might be one, but if she doesn’t give consent to make it public H&M would be in deep water legally to do so. 

I agree there may be photos. But what legal trouble do you mean, if he made them public?

Is there a law against taking one of your photos and giving it to the press? I ask this seriously, because I don't know.

If so, would the 96-year old Queen actually bother to sue Harry? It's not that easy to sue someone in the US from the UK, let alone enforce any judgment that is rendered. In any event, wouldn't this be a PR disaster for her, if she did? 

It seems to me that under California's right to publicity law, Harry would be OK--as long as he didn't use the photo to advertise something he was selling.

So releasing the photo to the public--OK. However, including it in a documentary he's involved with--maybe not. But maybe there are attorneys here that know better.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Jackie3

[just_ordinary]

In many European countries you hold the right to your own image. So if she doesn’t consent or specifically denies any public usage (I can totally see that they all signed something with each other anyway) they could be in hot waters. It’s a bit more tricky for public personas, but a family picture done in a private setting would definitely not fall under the „to be expected“ exposure. I am not sure how the UK handles it exactly though. It’s an interesting development as it might open the door for children of influencer to sue their parents. If you think about how much they make on the back of their children I think that’s going to happen sooner or later. 
And even if there is no legal angle, I can absolutely see how they told them this picture/those pictures better not be released without specific consent. The RF still has lots of options for pressure. Remove the HRH, reduce his inheritance options to the mere obligations, no mention of them ever again in official channels, bye bye Frogmore, not including them in those half business/half family accomplishments engagement like the jubilee, the public part of the funeral, the coronation and only have them in the actual private moments. If H&M would have been serious about doing it on their own, most if it wouldn’t be a problem. They also didn’t need to bring up the RF all the time. But as they don’t have much to show for apart from being rouge royals they need the possible access. 
Removing the Dukedom is off the cards though I think. They need the government for that and they have definitely more important things to do. And that’s a real moment to ask the But what about Andy (and Fergie) question. The only way that goes is a complete overhaul of the system. Which I would very much prefer. Ex-spouses shouldn’t carry it anymore. Being a working royal should be a requirement. Children only inherit it if the monarch signs it off- even if it’s done as a mere formality there would be no automatism. Women getting Dukedoms…. (I think Charlotte should get the Dukedom of Windsor. Enough time has passed and with a female there would be a new narratives for it. Her children though, should not inherit it, as they will very likely never work as royals as well.)

[Four is Enough]

Since primogeniture with the first son is off the charts, I agree that Charlotte should be in line for a Duchy of some sort.. But none of the royal titles are inheritable automatically except the one, correct?

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

In many European countries you hold the right to your own image. So if she doesn’t consent or specifically denies any public usage (I can totally see that they all signed something with each other anyway) they could be in hot waters. It’s a bit more tricky for public personas, but a family picture done in a private setting would definitely not fall under the „to be expected“ exposure. I am not sure how the UK handles it exactly though. It’s an interesting development as it might open the door for children of influencer to sue their parents. If you think about how much they make on the back of their children I think that’s going to happen sooner or later. 
And even if there is no legal angle, I can absolutely see how they told them this picture/those pictures better not be released without specific consent. The RF still has lots of options for pressure. Remove the HRH, reduce his inheritance options to the mere obligations, no mention of them ever again in official channels, bye bye Frogmore, not including them in those half business/half family accomplishments engagement like the jubilee, the public part of the funeral, the coronation and only have them in the actual private moments. If H&M would have been serious about doing it on their own, most if it wouldn’t be a problem. They also didn’t need to bring up the RF all the time. But as they don’t have much to show for apart from being rouge royals they need the possible access. 
Removing the Dukedom is off the cards though I think. They need the government for that and they have definitely more important things to do. And that’s a real moment to ask the But what about Andy (and Fergie) question. The only way that goes is a complete overhaul of the system. Which I would very much prefer. Ex-spouses shouldn’t carry it anymore. Being a working royal should be a requirement. Children only inherit it if the monarch signs it off- even if it’s done as a mere formality there would be no automatism. Women getting Dukedoms…. (I think Charlotte should get the Dukedom of Windsor. Enough time has passed and with a female there would be a new narratives for it. Her children though, should not inherit it, as they will very likely never work as royals as well.)

Yes, they definitely could pressure him by using their support/love/money as leverage. And that might be quite effective.

But I dont' think they have a legal angle. What damages could the Queen claim, anyway? A picture of her with a baby? What damage would she suffer from that? 

Also, I assume this would be brought to a California court, since Harry is in the US. That would be vastly easier than trying to get a UK judgment recognized and enforced in a California court.  The whole thing would look terrible for the Queen, though.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Jackie3

[MomJeans]

If the Queen’s own staff took a picture, than that staff member would own the copyright. And the staff member could transfer copyright ownership to the Queen. 

Just like Megan owned the copyright to her letter she wrote to her dad. 

The reason the Sussexes wanted their photographer to take a picture is that (1) they wanted a high quality photo and (2) they wanted to own the copyright.  

True, H&M could have snapped their own photos, but they don’t want to piss off the Queen. So if they raised their phones to snap a photo and she says no, they wouldn’t do it.

[louisa05]

7 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Yes, they definitely could pressure him by using their support/love/money as leverage. And that might be quite effective.

But I dont' think they have a legal angle. What damages could the Queen claim, anyway? A picture of her with a baby? What damage would she suffer from that? 

Also, I assume this would be brought to a California court, since Harry is in the US. That would be vastly easier than trying to get a UK judgment recognized and enforced in a California court.  The whole thing would look terrible for the Queen, though.

The dukedoms given at marriage are inheritable. Andrew’s will return to the crown as he has only daughters. William’s will be inherited by George and merged with the crown so he can bestow it on someone else if he chooses. Charles inherited the Edinburgh title and it will merge with the Crown on his accession. Archie will inherit Harry’s. He, in fact, is entitled to use Harry’s subsidiary title now—Earl of Dumbarton.  They chose not to. I assume because it’s harder to whine that he has no title if they acknowledge that he has one. Same for Lili who is titled Lady Lillibet as the daughter of a Duke. 

[tabitha2]

James Viscount Severn will become Earl of Wessex in time. 

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, MomJeans said:

If the Queen’s own staff took a picture, than that staff member would own the copyright. And the staff member could transfer copyright ownership to the Queen. 

Just like Megan owned the copyright to her letter she wrote to her dad. 

The reason the Sussexes wanted their photographer to take a picture is that (1) they wanted a high quality photo and (2) they wanted to own the copyright.  

True, H&M could have snapped their own photos, but they don’t want to piss off the Queen. So if they raised their phones to snap a photo and she says no, they wouldn’t do it.

Another reason they may have wanted pictures taken by their professional photographer was that they wanted to publish pics as part of their narrative.

The tabloids and near-tabloids have speculated that Netflix wants more “royal” stuff for their reality tv/documentary on the Sussexes.  We can’t know if that is true, but it was certainly a concern for the Queen.

Regardless of what Harry has to say about how “close” he is to his grandmother, the fact that she had only 15 minutes to spend with them is pretty telling.  I wouldn’t be surprised if she was hurt and angry at his behavior.  You can love someone and still not be comfortable with them.

From the outside, I think Harry and Meghan should have stayed a week after the Jubilee celebrations. (Even if they don’t have police protection everywhere they go, they could stay in Windsor and they’d be fine.)  If they’d stayed longer, there would have been time to visit the Queen on a day when she was more rested, maybe to meet with Charles and William (even if it was awkward). There was talk last year of christening Lilibet at Windsor.  If she hasn’t been christened yet, a very small private ceremony could have been arranged.   If it is true that Harry wants to reconnect with his family, a relaxed, informal visit would be the way to do it.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I wonder if the Queen controlled the situation to the point of having the staff take H&M’s phones before the visit. Good point that she might have been dressed too casually to be photographed.

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I wonder if the Queen controlled the situation to the point of having the staff take H&M’s phones before the visit. Good point that she might have been dressed too casually to be photographed.

It probably wasn’t necessary.  It was only 15 minutes, and I am sure it was made clear to them how the Queen would feel if any pictures surfaced.  

I wonder if Archie was there.  You would think that the Queen would want to see him too.

[just_ordinary]

10 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I wonder if the Queen controlled the situation to the point of having the staff take H&M’s phones before the visit. Good point that she might have been dressed too casually to be photographed.

I don’t think HMTQ could have been dressed too casually. We have seen plenty photos of her in her „casual“ clothes at Balmoral. It’s not as if she lounges around in her dressing gown. She might have been confined to the sofa and felt not too well in general, so that could be a reason to say no pictures please. But as this might be the one and only time she saw Lili I highly doubt there is not even one photo. 
The 15 minutes slot is interesting. But it could also be due to her physical state.

 

On 6/17/2022 at 1:27 AM, louisa05 said:

The dukedoms given at marriage are inheritable. Andrew’s will return to the crown as he has only daughters. William’s will be inherited by George and merged with the crown so he can bestow it on someone else if he chooses. Charles inherited the Edinburgh title and it will merge with the Crown on his accession. Archie will inherit Harry’s. He, in fact, is entitled to use Harry’s subsidiary title now—Earl of Dumbarton.  They chose not to. I assume because it’s harder to whine that he has no title if they acknowledge that he has one. Same for Lili who is titled Lady Lillibet as the daughter of a Duke. 

That’s why I think a big overhaul might be in the works. To stop an automatic inheritance and add the need of a confirmation through the monarch when it’s time to go on. In that case you can title the children of a monarch but prevent titles for people too far down the line. I don’t think this would be done with H&M in mind but rather the whole set up that is under criticism for the many people for decades now. 

[louisa05]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I don’t think HMTQ could have been dressed too casually. We have seen plenty photos of her in her „casual“ clothes at Balmoral. It’s not as if she lounges around in her dressing gown. She might have been confined to the sofa and felt not too well in general, so that could be a reason to say no pictures please. But as this might be the one and only time she saw Lili I highly doubt there is not even one photo. 
The 15 minutes slot is interesting. But it could also be due to her physical state.

 

That’s why I think a big overhaul might be in the works. To stop an automatic inheritance and add the need of a confirmation through the monarch when it’s time to go on. In that case you can title the children of a monarch but prevent titles for people too far down the line. I don’t think this would be done with H&M in mind but rather the whole set up that is under criticism for the many people for decades now. 

I’m not sure that these titles are a huge problem. Let’s use the current Earl of Snowdon as an example. He has always had a job, has received no money from the Crown or government, does not have housing owned by the Crown…nothing. Edward and Sophie have repeatedly said that their children (who actually have HRH prince/ss titles  and do not use them) will work and support themselves. The Queen is not providing housing for Bea and Edo. She has not arranged housing in Portugal for Eugenie and Jack and it appears they will not have housing in London on royal property. Both York girls have had jobs to support themselves since completing their education. No need to fuss with titles when the modern expectation is that they do not come with financial support beyond those direct in line who work representing the monarchy. 
 

And I suspect the heart of M$H’s angst about their children and the monarchy is not about titles and security but that it was made clear that they should be raised to support themselves and not plan to be working royals supported by their grandfather/uncle/cousin. 

[tabitha2]

About working and supporting themselves let’s not get carried away. Even if he never worked a day in his life  the Earl of Snowden would have have enough to live very comfortably in lower Aristocrat circles and same for Wessex children. Beatrice and Eugenie had jobs in fields that interested them because they wanted to not because of necessity and are now are married to fabulously wealthy men who hardly need Granny to help them. 

[Jackie3]

On 6/15/2022 at 10:51 AM, Four is Enough said:

You know a five year old gets enamored of interesting things. Perhaps he wanted to shake hands.

 

LOL, if my five year old hadnt seen me in six months, and wanted to shake hands, I'd be really worried. For that matter, I cannot imagine leaving my 5 and 2 year old for six months. 

There is so much evidence that the Queen was a cold, distant mother, that it's really not worth going into. People here know so much about the royal family, and they certainly know this.

I was making a different point. If you want to create loving, balanced, stable, kind adults, I'm not sure if the proper recipe includes fabulous wealth, public adoration/resentment, incredible luxury, isolation at huge manor houses, absent parents, nannies, hiding from the press, and being constantly followed by bodyguards. History indicates that it does not.

[tabitha2]

 

 

[LilaMae]

3 hours ago, louisa05 said:

I’m not sure that these titles are a huge problem. Let’s use the current Earl of Snowdon as an example. He has always had a job, has received no money from the Crown or government, does not have housing owned by the Crown…nothing. Edward and Sophie have repeatedly said that their children (who actually have HRH prince/ss titles  and do not use them) will work and support themselves. The Queen is not providing housing for Bea and Edo. She has not arranged housing in Portugal for Eugenie and Jack and it appears they will not have housing in London on royal property. Both York girls have had jobs to support themselves since completing their education. No need to fuss with titles when the modern expectation is that they do not come with financial support beyond those direct in line who work representing the monarchy. 

 

And I suspect the heart of M$H’s angst about their children and the monarchy is not about titles and security but that it was made clear that they should be raised to support themselves and not plan to be working royals supported by their grandfather/uncle/cousin. 

I think the problematic titles are Prince/Princess rather than Duke/Earl etc. There are a fair number of titled people in the UK, but very few Princes/Princesses, and it must be quite awkward to be a Prince who doesn't do any actual working royal duties but has to work in a normal job for a living. It's interesting to see the differences between the Princes/Princesses of previous centuries and those today- for those who survived infancy, they would mainly marry into other Royal families and forge diplomatic ties and/or take up important roles in the military/colonial roles, so even minor Royals could end up being relatively important in their own right. However, in 2022, we don't tend to have old-style military campaigns, the Empire is gone, there aren't many Royal families left, and great improvements in healthcare mean that the first born child is more likely than ever to reach adulthood and take the crown.

Charles has been pretty clear for a long time that he intends to slim down the monarchy. It was quite obvious during the Oprah interview that there was some serious butthurt about the lack of princely title going on. I'm not sure if Meghan in particular understood that a modern Royal family doesn't look like a Disney film, where just being born to a Prince guarantees a royal lifestyle and a horde of bodyguards. It's a shame, because I think Charles is doing the right thing by Archie and Lilibet, and giving them titles would have just made it difficult for them to fit in.