Harry & Meghan 10: Even Less Relevant to the BRF

[rosamundi]

2 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

If you read the statutes closely, you will find that they all refer to "her" Majesty. So, they're up for discussion in the event of her death. As far as I know, that doesn't automatically transfer.

I think it depends on the individual act, this one, the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Act 2020 is written quite broadly and encompasses the Duchy of Cornwall (which was never hers, as she was never the Heir Apparent, she was always the Heir Presumptive and was never the Duchess of Cornwall.

Quote

10 Crown land: powers of entry (1) The powers conferred by the Schedule (powers of entry etc.) may be exercised in relation to Crown land only with the consent of the appropriate authority. (2) In this section— (a)“Crown land” means land, an interest in which belongs to— (i)Her Majesty in right of the Crown or in right of Her private estate, (ii)Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, (iii)the Duchy of Cornwall, or (iv)a government department or is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department; (b)“appropriate authority” means— (i)if the land belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the Crown Estate Commissioners or other government department having the management of the land in question; (ii)if the land belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy; (iii)if the land belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, such person as the Duke of Cornwall, or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall, appoints; (iv)if the land belongs to a government department or is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purpose of a government department, that department. (3)If any question arises under this section as to what authority is the appropriate authority in relation to any land, that question is to be referred to the Treasury, whose decision is final. (4)In this section, the reference to Her Majesty's private estates is to be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Crown Private Estates Act 1862 (c. 37)

However, this one, the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 specifically excludes the Queen in her private capacity, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall.

Quote

(3)The reference to the Crown in subsection (2) does not include— (a)Her Majesty in Her private capacity, (b)Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, or (c)the Duke of Cornwall.

I had a look on the government legislation page to see if there is any sort of general accession act that says things like "for all references to His Majesty George VI in previous acts, read Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" or something, but it doesn't look like all the Acts from 1952 have been uploaded, there are gaps. So what automatically transfers or updates and what doesn't is a bit of a Holy Mystery - it's 70 years since the last time this happened and while I'm sure someone somewhere has

Deal with legislation (? pass accession law so Acts referring to QEII also refer to KCIII?)

on a long list somewhere, who that person is, when the changes are made, and how sweeping the legislation is, I don't know. I might even be over-thinking it and it all happens automatically with no need for legislation.

[viii]

1 hour ago, LilaMae said:

There have been some excerpts in the Times (British newspaper) which are quite interesting. It's going to be published next week, so I'm sure the reviews will say if there's anything "big". 

I'm more interested to see whether Meghan tries to sue him...

Yes, I’ve read the excerpts. They’re extremely interesting. Now I really want to see the bullying claims from BP. 

I’m also curious to see how Harry & Meghan handle this. I believe Tom has been sued multiple times and has won each time. He does his homework. 

[MomJeans]

Tom did an interview yesterday that I viewed as him going on the offensive against the Sussexes- he "keeps receipts" so to speak.  I would guess that his book deal included a legal team that is all ready to begin working on a defense.

[Jackie3]

8 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

The trouble is that she is the head of state. So, she enjoys immunity.

Why should anyone be above the law?

Here's an excerpt from Bowers' book:

Quote

"Meghan was allegedly abrasive towards her four female staff and even towards the local British diplomats."

Abrasive!!! Oh, no! A woman who is abrasive. So different from the gentle, refined Princess Margaret, lol. She had a revolving door of staff, because of her rudeness and high-handedness.

Or from Andrew or Philip, know for screaming their servants.

This old boomer dude is living by an antiquated set of rules, whereby rich white guys get to be abrasive, but biracial women need to keep sweet.

Here's another shocking revelation:

Quote

Every morning he and Meghan turned on their phones to surf the internet."

Just like everyone else in England. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Jackie3

[MamaJunebug]

12 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Yes, according to my dictionary. Thank you. 😊  Sorry for the mistake. Prefix „in“ indicates contrary meaning for words of foreign origin in my first language. 

I actually like “intransparent” and will endeavor to use it soon among friends to see who’s really listening!!  

[Jackie3]

On 7/16/2022 at 11:49 AM, EmCatlyn said:

The guy may have turned over a new leaf, and I am not snarking at the Sussexes if they opted to give him a chance, but it is a little ironic that Princess Diana died in a car driven by a drunk “security” person and that Meghan, who is so much a feminist, is ok with the domestic violence charges.

It's a "feminist thing" to be against DV? So everyone else is OK with beating up your partner or your child? Only feminists have a problem with it? What about wives who hit their husbands--is that just a feminist thing too? 

I think there is a difference between giving an offender a job and "being OK" with domestic violence. It involves a bit of critical thinking, but the difference is there. Most likely M&H did the first thing, but did not do the second. You may need to look elsewhere for dirt.

Finally, it's nice you are trying to be liberal -minded and all, but DV offenders rarely just "turn over a new leaf." They need the proper kind of therapy (not any old therapy) and lots of confrontation from former offenders. It's possible that Meghan and Harry made a mistake here, at least from an "ick" perspective. This guy is unlikely to hit them--DV offenders know how to turn it off and on--but why would you want such a person on your staff?

 

14 hours ago, viii said:

Anyway… anyone else excited to read Tom Bower’s book? Should be fun! 

The old dude who wrote the book is so biased that it can hardly be a reliable source. But if you want a book to trash your favorite royal scapegoat, then look no further. It's arrived. The old dude, like many others, wanted the royal family to remain white, untouchable and exactly the same forever.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Jackie3

[samurai_sarah]

So, there is this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/17/ludicrous-limits-on-police-wildlife-inquiries-on-queens-estates-decried

For anyone, who doesn't want to read: Wildlife organisations in the UK are upset with the Queen's liberties.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

The first extract says, “In America, no one would be aware of those contradictions [in Harry’s statements about his family]. Uh, Tom, quite a few of us noticed.

The part about how awful she was to the crew while shooting a commercial for Reitman’s seems well-sourced and convincing.

The next excerpt should be about the Oprah interview; that ought to be interesting.

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, samurai_sarah said:

So, there is this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/17/ludicrous-limits-on-police-wildlife-inquiries-on-queens-estates-decried

For anyone, who doesn't want to read: Wildlife organisations in the UK are upset with the Queen's liberties.

Just to make sure I got this right: There has been cooperation on several / all investigations of incidents on or near the Sandringham estate but they are concerned that having to obtain permission first leaves time to get rid of evidence. Correct? I‘d say that‘s a reasonable concern. 

[MomJeans]

@MamaJunebug  Tom Bower said this morning that his upcoming book does discuss Doria.  I believe you were interested.  And apparently Bower has unflattering things to say and spent 2 days in Mexico with Thomas Markle. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by MomJeans

[MamaJunebug]

30 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

@MamaJunebug  Tom Bower said this morning that his upcoming book does discuss Doria.  I believe you were interested.  And apparently Bower has unflattering things to say and spent 2 days in Mexico with Thomas Markle. 

Thank you!

Just listened to excerpts from the chapter on the Reitman’s ad. It was shot in Montreal, PQ, and according to the book when the crew couldn’t take MM’s BS anymore, they all started conversing in French. A language which apparently she does not parlez. That’s funny, I don’t care who it is. /Larry The Cable Guy

[zee_four]

On 7/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Jackie3 said:

Why should anyone be above the law?

Here's an excerpt from Bowers' book:

Abrasive!!! Oh, no! A woman who is abrasive. So different from the gentle, refined Princess Margaret, lol. She had a revolving door of staff, because of her rudeness and high-handedness.

Or from Andrew or Philip, know for screaming their servants.

This old boomer dude is living by an antiquated set of rules, whereby rich white guys get to be abrasive, but biracial women need to keep sweet.

Here's another shocking revelation:

Just like everyone else in England. 

Yes because defending yourself by accusing others, some long dead, of behaving badly is such a strong defense. To me when people resort to this fallacy, I see it as proof they are guilty of doing whatever they've been accused of. Same with minimizing whatever behavior it is.

It's an even worse look when the only reason the issue has been raised at all is because said person created a very public fallout by accusing people and institutions of being guilty of the very same act and how it was devastating and almost life threatening its consequences were for them.

Edited July 19, 2022 by zee_four
grammar was messy

[SoSoNosy]

This seems to be a credulous news source, for the most part.  I saw this article when I was skimming other local news (I know this isn't what you would call local).

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-sought-24520501

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, zee_four said:

Yes because defending yourself by accusing others, some long dead, of behaving badly is such a strong defense.

I was unaware Prince Andrew was long dead. I thought he was still alive and screaming at his servants. He sounds like his treats them horribly. Has Tom Bower written a book about him? 

I hope Tom's book show that Harry was "upset" a lot--upset about Christmas photos, upset about the Jubilee--since that seems to be the desire outcome. Everyone wants him upset and unhappy! Serves him right for wanting a different life. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, SoSoNosy said:

This seems to be a credulous news source, for the most part.  I saw this article when I was skimming other local news (I know this isn't what you would call local).

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-sought-24520501

Meghan dared to think she had Diana's magic! How uppity of her, if it is true.

But it probably isn't.

Meghan isn't old enough to remember Diana's influence or how popular she was. I doubt Diana, dead for nearly 25 years now, was anyone Meghan  thought very much about.

It's Tom Bower who remembers Diana with a rosy glow. And that is where his reporting fails. He thinks Diana was the ultimate royal, so he imagines that Meghan thinks the same. I doubt Meghan paid much attention to Diana as a child and young teen. Most American children don't follow the royals closely. Meghan probably has other women she admires, but Bower, at 75, doesn't know about them.

Bower seems to like to write books trashing royals. He wrote Rebel Prince, which made Prince Charles look like a total fool. That came out four years ago. He's been busy!

[Jackie3]

On 7/17/2022 at 6:26 AM, Coconut Flan said:

First they have to put some content out.  That's the sticking point right now.

I understand that the deadline for their content is due soon. I don't understand the sad, hungry hoping  that they'll miss the deadline.

If they miss the deadline, there's probably some penalties built into the contract, which they'll pay. What's the big deal? 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Jackie3

[AmazonGrace]

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Meghan isn't old enough to remember Diana's influence or how popular she was. I doubt Diana, dead for nearly 25 years now, was anyone Meghan  thought very much about.

Diana died in 1997. I have no idea what Meghan knew or thought about Diana but she was born in 1981 and at 16 years old she was certainly old enough to remember celebrities should she be aware of them. 

[just_ordinary]

Oh dear. Again H missed the mark. While I am absolutely in favour of saying out loud that the US seems to get crazier every month and on a backwards development I don‘t think Nelson Mandela Day at the UN is the right time and place. Same for his other angles. Honestly, what’s so complicated about making it about Nelson Mandela? About shining a light what he stood for? And not what he might have spoken out against would he still be with us. Without writing his feelings in 3m high red letters on the wall? I don’t disagree with his opinion, and he absolutely has the right to voice them. But he seems to have no instinct about how to deliver them. He also seems to be in deep conflict about „free speech“. I have no problem with some restrictions. We have that here and I absolutely don’t feel restricted by the law as of now. But it’s not completely free and I can absolutely understand why some think that’s wrong. If you allow complete freedom people need to grow a thicker skin though or we will have constant fighting. It seems accepting that people will fundamentally disagree with you, judge you, dislike you for good reasons or non at all is not an option anymore. That’s a different level than the law though. H&M can’t have it both ways. Either they are free to criticise, shame and badmouth others but so is everyone else and that means that negative things, gossip and misinformation can be told about them or they should display the same restraints they expect from everyone else. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by just_ordinary

[prayawaythefundie]

Who cares if Meghan has „Diana‘s magic“? Maybe I‘m just too young (I was 9 when she died) but I never got the hype. Wouldn‘t make a difference for the Sussexes‘ role in the royal family anyway. Harry was born into a supporting part with decreasing importance. It‘s not fair but it‘s how their hierarchy works. And that‘s probably why it didn‘t work for them. 

Someone tell me again why Harry would have anything to contribute to remembering Nelson Mandela? Oh right, he‘s Diana‘s son. I think he has mentioned it once or twice…

Edited July 19, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[QuiverFullofBooks]

8 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Meghan dared to think she had Diana's magic! How uppity of her, if it is true.

But it probably isn't.

Meghan isn't old enough to remember Diana's influence or how popular she was. I doubt Diana, dead for nearly 25 years now, was anyone Meghan  thought very much about.

It's Tom Bower who remembers Diana with a rosy glow. And that is where his reporting fails. He thinks Diana was the ultimate royal, so he imagines that Meghan thinks the same. I doubt Meghan paid much attention to Diana as a child and young teen. Most American children don't follow the royals closely. Meghan probably has other women she admires, but Bower, at 75, doesn't know about them.

Bower seems to like to write books trashing royals. He wrote Rebel Prince, which made Prince Charles look like a total fool. That came out four years ago. He's been busy!

I think this is not actual memories (though people have said that Meghan was fascinated by Diana), but a narrative that appears in “Diana: Her True Story” that was picked up by “The Crown,” where it influenced Harry and Meghan. In both cases, a new royal bride got good press in the beginning, then did a popular tour of Australia, and then started to find her role difficult. Harry seems to have seized upon it as an explanation. He talked about it in the Oprah interview.

[Coconut Flan]

9 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I understand that the deadline for their content is due soon. I don't understand the sad, hungry hoping  that they'll miss the deadline.

If they miss the deadline, there's probably some penalties built into the contract, which they'll pay. What's the big deal? 

They won't be paid.  The networks/streaming services don't pay the contract up front.  They pay upon delivery and acceptance of product.  There is no sad hungry hoping, it's commenting on fact.  They haven't fulfilled their contract terms. There may be some waiting to see what they do next.  

Twisting words and trying to imply motivation that isn't there doesn't make you look any better.  Trolls gonna troll.

[AmazonGrace]

How much of the actual work are they doing themselves and how much they have just delegated to some  team or another? Meghan may be a professional but I didn't think Harry would know much about media production, beyond sitting in front of cameras.

[Jackie3]

16 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Diana died in 1997. I have no idea what Meghan knew or thought about Diana but she was born in 1981 and at 16 years old she was certainly old enough to remember celebrities should she be aware of them. 

At 16 years old, in the Us, she was unlikely to care!

10 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Who cares if Meghan has „Diana‘s magic“? Maybe I‘m just too young (I was 9 when she died) but I never got the hype. Wouldn‘t make a difference for the Sussexes‘ role in the royal family anyway. Harry was born into a supporting part with decreasing importance. It‘s not fair but it‘s how their hierarchy works. And that‘s probably why it didn‘t work for them. 

Someone tell me again why Harry would have anything to contribute to remembering Nelson Mandela? Oh right, he‘s Diana‘s son. I think he has mentioned it once or twice…

Exactly. Children (especially in the US) were unlikely to care much if when a UK royal princess died. They heard about it, but it wasn’t a big thing.

It was a big deal, however, to a middle-aged royal reporter who’d followed Diana for years. 

21 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

How much of the actual work are they doing themselves and how much they have just delegated to some  team or another? 

This is exactly my question about the royals’ “charitable work.”

[tabitha2]

Anyone interested in current events or The BRF or pop culture would have been following the Charles and Diana saga. I was 16 as well and knew the the basics of what was going on. 

[Jackie3]

8 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

They won't be paid.  The networks/streaming services don't pay the contract up front.  They pay upon delivery and acceptance of product.  

If they don’t fulfill the contract, they won’t be paid. But why is that interesting? Plenty of people choose not to complete a contract, for whatever reason. They won’t starve, so what does it matter?

2 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Anyone interested in current events or The BRF or pop culture would have been following the Charles and Diana saga. I was 16 as well and knew the the basics of what was going on. 

Most 16 year olds have lots of other things going on, and are thinking of those things. Like you, a teen would probably know Diana died, but will care a lot more about whether their friends are free or why they can’t get an A in geometry or why their boss at work keeps making them work weekends. If you were different, that’s fine, but it’s probably why you are here.