Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Current Events 2: April-September 2020

[Somebody]

It is a difficult road to go. The best way I look at it for guidance of what they should or should not be doing is actually boiled down to *one* statement that the Sussexes have made clear and this comes from the horse's mouth (I mean figurately and not Carltonlima Emma's)

"With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.

The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

If Harry and Meghan have made clear that they will uphold the values of the Queen, this is the yardstick by which their actions and words should be measured by.

Great reminder and a well-worded statement. Yes, they should uphold the values of The Sovereign. Creating controversy (although that one is a bit tricky in that people have different standards) or painting the BRF in a negative light in lawsuits surely isn't part of that

 

[Elenath]

The fact that some people see "speaking of racism" as controversial might be part of the problem. It shouldn't be controversial at all, just like it should not be seen as political. Same with sexism. These things are human right issues and royals talk about these things all the time.

 

[Denville]

He’s an HRH and if he wants to keep being one than there are going to be restricted on what opinions they can publicly express

He can say waht he likes but he will be subject to crticisim.

 

[Durham]

The fact that some people see "speaking of racism" as controversial might be part of the problem. It shouldn't be controversial at all, just like it should not be seen as political. Same with sexism. These things are human right issues and royals talk about these things all the time.

Once again - he said that "institutional racism" is "endemic" in our societies ie the UK.

He was not just "speaking of racism". His words are very specific.

Pointing out that this is a controversial statement is not part of any problem.

He has made an assertion with no accompanying evidence. When the Met Police was criticised for being "institutionally racist" by the Macpherson Report it came at the end of a wide ranging & thorough examination of the police.

 

[Mbruno]

Luckily, there are several examples of princes in other royal houses who manage just fine, so, it isn't impossible. He could probably talk to prince Constantijn of the Netherlands who has managed a comparable position quite well...

I think the two situations are not exactly the same as expectations about Constantijn and Harry have always been different.



Constantijn, who is in the line of succession and is an official member (by law) of the Dutch Royal House, has always had a private career as did his late brother Friso, who was not in the line of succession and was no longer a member of the Royal House by virtue of his unapproved marriage. That is just the Dutch way: Constantijn will take part in some official events like the annual opening of the Staten-Generaal and maybe a few state dinners, as Princess Margriet also used to do during Queen Beatrix's reign, but will never be expected to be a full-time working royal or receive state funding.



Harry, on the other hand, as the son of King Charles III (or George VII, or whatever) and the brother of King William V, was expected to be a full-time royal and not have a private career other than a decade or so (maybe longer) in the military . That was the norm for his uncles and aunt and, for his grand-aunt and great-grand-uncles before that. When Edward tried to break the pattern, and have his own business, it didn't work out, he was accused of trying to take advantage of his royal connections (which is an inevitable accusation IMHO in countries like the UK) and, then, he went back to being a full-time royal.

 

[Somebody]

I think the two situations are not exactly the same as expectations about Constantijn and Harry have always been different.

Constantijn, who is in the line of succession and is an official member (by law) of the Dutch Royal House, has always had a private career as did his late brother Friso, who was not in the line of succession and was no longer a member of the Royal House by virtue of his unapproved marriage. That is just the Dutch way: Constantijn will take part in some official events like the annual opening of the Staten-Generaal and maybe a few state dinners, as Princess Margriet also used to do during Queen Beatrix's reign, but will never be expected to be a full-time working royal or receive state funding.

Harry, on the other hand, as the son of King Charles III (or George VII, or whatever) and the brother of King William V, was expected to be a full-time royal and not have a private career other than a decade or so (maybe longer) in the military . That was the norm for his uncles and aunt and, for his grand-aunt and great-grand-uncles before that. When Edward tried to break the pattern, and have his own business, it didn't work out, he was accused of trying to take advantage of his royal connections (which is an inevitable accusation IMHO in countries like the UK) and, then, he went back to being a full-time royal.

Of course the situations were very different at first - although now Harry decided he wanted out, this would be someone he could look to for advice on how to combine the various responsibilities.

However, my post was a response to the presented 'conundrum': i.e., the restrictions of being a royal while not being a full-working member of the royal family. That situation is not unique to Harry at all. It was presented as if it was unfair; while it is the logical consequence of being born in a royal family. You cannot just go about your life as it WILL reflect on the family as a whole. The most a royal can distance themselves is by giving up their succession rights (and titles) but even then the public will still associate them with the royal family... But at least, in that case it is clear that said royal formally has no role to play within the monarchy.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...ress-former-controversial-behaviour-race.html

Prince Harry should have apologised for HIS past behaviour during Princess Diana Award speech after 2006 footage showed him using racial slurs to address Army colleagues, Loose Women’s Jane Moore says

 

[LadyStark]

120 black people have been killed by the American police since George Floyd's death...

The 120 line referenced above has been debunked. It was originally from random Facebook posts, and those posts did not even include a race.

 

[Denville]

Of course the situations were very different at first - although now Harry decided he wanted out, this would be someone he could look to for advice on how to combine the various responsibilities.

However, my post was a response to the presented 'conundrum': i.e., the restrictions of being a royal while not being a full-working member of the royal family. That situation is not unique to Harry at all. It was presented as if it was unfair; while it is the logical consequence of being born in a royal family. You cannot just go about your life as it WILL reflect on the family as a whole. The most a royal can distance themselves is by giving up their succession rights (and titles) but even then the public will still associate them with the royal family... But at least, in that case it is clear that said royal formally has no role to play within the monarchy.

That has been made clear by the queen that in their working life, they are not royals.. (but she has said they will always be members of her persona family).

 

[Hallo girl]

As has been discussed on here, I always thought Harrys wish to leave was to live a private quieter life away from the press and cameras.

I never thought it was to make more money.

I also agree that it is difficult for the royals further down the line, Beatrice and Eugenie are examples, where they are expected to earn their own living but are still referred to as royals and are criticised if they take the wrong option.

 

[Denville]

As has been discussed on here, I always thought Harrys wish to leave was to live a private quieter life away from the press and cameras.

I never thought it was to make more money.

I also agree that it is difficult for the royals further down the line, Beatrice and Eugenie are examples, where they are expected to earn their own living but are still referred to as royals and are criticised if they take the wrong option.

If you want a private life away form the Cameras, do ou really go to live in LA where life is very expensive and where there are paparazzi's on every corner? DO you do speeches about your mental health? Do you need to have a discussion with the Queen about the use of your HRH if you are opting for a quiet private life?

 

[Jacknch]

Let's move back to the topic of the thread, which is Current Events.

 

[Somebody]

According to Yahoo/People -and also mentioned in the New York Times- Harry and Meghan are actively approaching companies to join the Stop Hate for Profit Campaign.

(If this is supposed to be news instead of a current event or already discussed elsewhere, please move it to the right thread).

 

[Lee-Z]

Anything helping to 'stop hate' is a good initiative in my books..

 

[Durham]

According to Yahoo/People -and also mentioned in the New York Times- Harry and Meghan are actively approaching companies to join the Stop Hate for Profit Campaign.

(If this is supposed to be news instead of a current event or already discussed elsewhere, please move it to the right thread).

They are now calling on companies telling them to join in an advertising boycott of a social network!

Extraordinary.

This is a statement by one of Facebook’s Vice Presidents :

https://about.fb.com/news/2020/07/facebook-does-not-benefit-from-hate/

Clearly this is a complex issue that cannot be reduced to simple sloganeering.

This senior Facebook executive just happens to be the former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

So we now have the somewhat awkward situation of a former very senior politician & the duke & duchess on two opposite sides of a very heated & contentious issue.

How much more bizarre all this can get I just don't know. There must surely be potential for damage to the reputation of the monarchy if this type of activism continues. Especially in the next reign.

 

[Osipi]

How much more bizarre all this can get I just don't know. There must surely be potential for damage to the reputation of the monarchy if this type of activism continues. Especially in the next reign.

Bizarre is the name of the game these days but this is by far *not* the most bizarre thing I've heard. Top of my list today is that citizens of Columbus, Ohio are petitioning not only to take down the status of Christopher Columbus but also to replace the statue with one of Chef Boyardee (maker of economicaly affordable canned dinners) and renaming the town "Flavortown". The man that started this company is from that area.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Denville]

They are now calling on companies telling them to join in an advertising boycott of a social network!

Extraordinary.

This is a statement by one of Facebook’s Vice Presidents :

https://about.fb.com/news/2020/07/facebook-does-not-benefit-from-hate/

Clearly this is a complex issue that cannot be reduced to simple sloganeering.

This senior Facebook executive just happens to be the former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

So we now have the somewhat awkward situation of a former very senior politician & the duke & duchess on two opposite sides of a very heated & contentious issue.

How much more bizarre all this can get I just don't know. There must surely be potential for damage to the reputation of the monarchy if this type of activism continues. Especially in the next reign.

I suppose the RF will just ignore them adn continue with their usual political neutrality

 

[victor1319]

Anything helping to 'stop hate' is a good initiative in my books..

It looks like Citizen Harry hates Facebook and its stock holders...

 

[MARG]

Judging by the "advertisements" and fake accounts I am surprised so many people use it. How many Boogaloo Boys hate accounts did they just shut down? Boogaloo boys don't exactly sound like the alt-right hate group they are! And then there are others of political and religious hate of all sorts.

 

[Durham]

The issue surely is not about a particular company but rather about the active involvement of members of the royal family in controversial issues over the policing of the internet. The article by the former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is proof that these matters are not as clear cut as activists might insist.

Public discourse is febrile enough as it is without royalty getting involved.

 

[Denville]

The issue surely is not about a particular company but rather about the active involvement of members of the royal family in controversial issues over the policing of the internet. The article by the former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is proof that these matters are not as clear cut as activists might insist.

Public discourse is febrile enough as it is without royalty getting involved.

But they are not working royals now.. so they will get flak and crticisim...but the queen has made it clear that they're not representing her any longer. They may come across as naive, or they may get attacked by opponents.. but that's the risk they take in doing something like that.

 

[Durham]

But they are not working royals now.. so they will get flak and crticisim...but the queen has made it clear that they're not representing her any longer. They may come across as naive, or they may get attacked by opponents.. but that's the risk they take in doing something like that.

But they said they would "uphold the values of The Queen", as surely every member of the royal family (working or not) is obliged to do.

How can this sort of conduct be seen to be keeping that promise?

 

[Denville]

But they said they would "uphold the values of The Queen", as surely every member of the royal family (working or not) is obliged to do.

How can this sort of conduct be seen to be keeping that promise?

What does upholding the values of the queen mean in this context? THe queen can't get involved in politics but that does not mean that her grandson can't if he has given up working Royal life. He may be simplifying a complex issue but he's not saying anything that is WRONG per se...

 

[Eskimo]

What does upholding the values of the queen mean in this context? THe queen can't get involved in politics but that does not mean that her grandson can't if he has given up working Royal life. He may be simplifying a complex issue but he's not saying anything that is WRONG per se...

That's the tricky bit. When Harry and Meghan support these causes, the press reports it as HRH The Duke of Sussex supporting them. So in public view it seems that this support has the backing of the Queen and the RF.

 

[Durham]

What does upholding the values of the queen mean in this context? THe queen can't get involved in politics but that does not mean that her grandson can't if he has given up working Royal life. He may be simplifying a complex issue but he's not saying anything that is WRONG per se...

Upholding the values of The Queen must surely mean not getting involved in controversies of a political nature. How can this not be self evident? What other members of the royal family do this?

The issue is not about being them right or wrong. That's a separate issue entirely. The opinions of members of the royal family are of no consequence to anybody but themselves.

The issue is about publicly taking sides in a contentious debate.

 

[Denville]

Upholding the values of The Queen must surely mean not getting involved in controversies of a political nature. That is self evident. What other members of the royal family do this?

The issue is not about being them right or wrong. That's a separate issue entirely. The opinions of members of the royal family are of no consequence to anybody but themselves.

The issue is about publicly taking sides in a contentious debate.

I assumed that it was more to do with their future business practices that they would not get involved in anything shady, or dishonorable. Charles has certainly been involved in semi political issues, and has been criticized for it.

 

[Durham]

I assumed that it was more to do with their future business practices that they would not get involved in anything shady, or dishonorable. Charles has certainly been involved in semi political issues, and has been criticized for it.

I certainly think you're right about business but it isn't just that. Values implies more then just business practises.

Charles has indeed. You would think that the duke would be aware of that & have drawn the right conclusions. William certainly has. That would unfortunately not appear to be the case with his brother.

 

[Denville]

I certainly think you're right about business but it isn't just that. Values implies more then just business practises.

Charles has indeed. You would think that the duke would be aware of that & have drawn the right conclusions. William certainly has. That would unfortunately not appear to be the case with his brother.

I think that's Meghan, to be honest. I dotn think Harry would have gotten into all this stuff without her influence.. unless he's been holding out on us all these years and was a secret student radical...
But when Charles has been criticized for political stuff, he's always been defended by people saying "he is not the King yet so he can make certain statements as long as he knows they will have to stop when he is King."

 

[Queen Claude]

That's the tricky bit. When Harry and Meghan support these causes, the press reports it as HRH The Duke of Sussex supporting them. So in public view it seems that this support has the backing of the Queen and the RF.

The overwhelming majority of media reports I see refer to them as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

 

[Denville]

The overwhelming majority of media reports I see refer to them as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Yes I don't think that they are often referred to as HRH The D of Sussex etc.. which of course they should not be. And I dont think that if people see that the 2 of them endorse something, that they will think "Oh the queen must agree with this as well."