Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[Karin1984]

I still can't quite believe H&M had the audacity to complain about private money issues to garner public attention and sympathy from people actually struggling.

How does that qualify them to be public influencers, let alone millionaire, global influences (outside of his royal family)? It certainly makes them dubious political representatives, if the rumours hold any weight,

...And that's aside from their other complaints on private issues ...And questionable statements!

Today I read an article about that they might want to be like the Gates and Clooneys, but they might have harmed their chances to become part of this elite group, by giving this interview.

I wonder, if Harry and Meghan already knew about Zara and Mike Tindall's baby, before releasing the news about Harry's two jobs.

 

[BayouQueen]

Today I read an article about that they might want to be like the Gates and Clooneys, but they might have harmed their chances to become part of this elite group, by giving this interview.

I wonder, if Harry and Meghan already knew about Zara and Mike Tindall's baby, before releasing the news about Harry's two jobs.

It didn't take them long. As you predicted.

Edit to add...To me they already are like the Clooneys. Not like Gates at all.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I am very aware of Harry’s background. But my question was in response to posters familiar with non-profits and at least one saying that a lot of education was required for the position he was just awarded.

Again, would that normally be a position awarded to someone with a high school education and military background? Is a college education and/or advanced degree normally something that is required? Or is it the type of thing where he was hired for who he is (and who he knows)? That is what I am trying to get at. I am not familiar with how this works in that type of company. In my line of work you either have degrees or you don’t, so I am trying to understand. In the picture on the website it looks like the CEO has at least a bachelor‘s degree. As honorary as a military career is, I’m not sure if, at least here in the US, it takes the place of a degree. I thought that’s what the GI Bill was about - help for military people to obtain a formal education. Would appreciate anyone who knows about these things chiming in! Thanks

My husband was a CEO at a large non-profit with only a high school education. He didn’t have any connections or “ins” for getting that position, he just worked his way up from the bottom. While I’m sure it varies from place to place, our experiences have been that at some point one’s skills and experience start to matter to employers more than the degree they earned 20 years ago. In fact, my husband dropped the bachelor’s degree requirement for his new hires while he was at that organization because it was making it too hard for them to find qualified candidates — plenty of people showing up with degrees in hand but few with enough hands-on experience to actually know how to do the job well.

If Harry’s job will have him in some public facing role, then I would guess his fame will be more important to the organization than whether or what type of degree he has.

 

[NotUrsula]

I am very aware of Harry’s background. But my question was in response to posters familiar with non-profits and at least one saying that a lot of education was required for the position he was just awarded.

Again, would that normally be a position awarded to someone with a high school education and military background? Is a college education and/or advanced degree normally something that is required? Or is it the type of thing where he was hired for who he is (and who he knows)? That is what I am trying to get at. I am not familiar with how this works in that type of company. In my line of work you either have degrees or you don’t, so I am trying to understand. In the picture on the website it looks like the CEO has at least a bachelor‘s degree. As honorary as a military career is, I’m not sure if, at least here in the US, it takes the place of a degree. I thought that’s what the GI Bill was about - help for military people to obtain a formal education. Would appreciate anyone who knows about these things chiming in! Thanks

First, to address the issue of officers and formal education: in the US military, college degrees are more valued for officers than they are in some countries, and it is standard here for officers who wish to advance past Lieutenant to either have a Bachelor's Degree before they are commissioned (most of them), or earn one whilst on active duty (the rare few). The US Army still can grant field promotions from non-com to Lieutenant, but if you are lucky enough to get one, you get sent to school right away. Graduates of the US Service Academies earn a Bachelor's degree, and in the US, for pilots, that degree is almost always in some form of engineering (they CAN major in other things, but it is common knowledge that the engineering degree is more favorably regarded when it comes to promotion, so most of them go for it.) In the UK, a university degree is not required of officers (though as here, it helps enormously if you wish to move up), and Army Pilot Officers are often non-commissioned Warrant Officers by rank.

As to the position, there really isn't a "normal" in a company like that one, which has a very powerful founding CEO who essentially has the authority to hire anyone he wants to. I've worked at places like that, and it's not uncommon for education &/or experience to count a whole lot less than relationships when it comes to getting high-level jobs where you are one of the CEO's direct reports. Also, as a PP commented, it's also common in some fields (IT being the best-known of them) for experience and/or on-the-job certifications to completely overshadow formal education. Silicone Valley, in particular, is full of self-taught folks who got their foot in the door because they just have an obsession with developing the technology.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Thanks for answering, guys. Maybe the pp who made the education comment will also explain.

 

[cabanafrau]

I don't believe for one hot nano second that Meghan didn't want the $30M spectacle. She seems to enjoy putting on a lavish display. AND being center of attention.

I wasn't suggesting she didn't want the public wedding, or that she did. I merely said that the anecdote about the backyard wedding may have been an indirect way of addressing criticism they've seen about the lavish spectacle of a wedding, the spending, etc., etc. Do I know that to be the case? No. What makes me think it is likely is it fits with the pattern they are establishing with what they say, how they say it, and the way they choose to frame the situation that they present publicly. It's as if they are telling the public, this is us, raw, unvarnished, real, genuine -- and yet they've smeared the camera lens with Vaseline and have photoshopped the daylights out of the images.

Let's face it, if they had told the family and the palace that they wanted a smaller, intimate wedding the only response that would have been possible would have been, it is necessary that you go through with the large public ceremony and celebration, both as the son/brother of future kings and your mother's son, and because your bride is American and of mixed race. There would have been no quieting the clamor if Diana's second son didn't get the pageantry, and there would have been plenty of blowback if the American bride of mixed race wasn't given the chance to wear a tiara on a very public stage. Nothing the royals or even Harry and Meghan themselves might have said would have quieted all doubts about who wanted a small private wedding.

 

[redrosesix]

Another new job for Harry. He's gonna tell everybody what's true and what's not, I guess.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rt-Murdochs-daughter-law-Aspen-Institute.html

lol that's so ironic. At least the news article caught that too.

 

[redrosesix]

sooo off topic but what was that about Meghan not being allowed to spray perfume in the Church before the wedding? Is that something that people in the US do? imho that's a good way to cause issues for some guests. Sure we had fresh flowers but at least here there have been no scents at church or for public gatherings for a very long time.

And yes, they were told a smaller wedding would be fine, just as they were told they could have their own medical team for the baby. It was their choice to have a home birth, but in the interview she was complaining that they didn't have that photo moment outside the hospital where royal babies are traditionally born. Same deal with the titles...when Archie was born they didn't want any for him.

ie. I don't think they would be happy now regardless of which wedding they went with.

 

[snappy]

sooo off topic but what was that about Meghan not being allowed to spray perfume in the Church before the wedding? Is that something that people in the US do? imho that's a good way to cause issues for some guests. Sure we had fresh flowers but at least here there have been no scents at church or for public gatherings for a very long time.

And yes, they were told a smaller wedding would be fine, just as they were told they could have their own medical team for the baby. It was their choice to have a home birth, but in the interview she was complaining that they didn't have that photo moment outside the hospital where royal babies are traditionally born. Same deal with the titles...when Archie was born they didn't want any for him.

ie. I don't think they would be happy now regardless of which wedding they went with.

It was in the news that Meghan thought the chapel had a musty smell.

 

[design_mom]

sooo off topic but what was that about Meghan not being allowed to spray perfume in the Church before the wedding? Is that something that people in the US do? imho that's a good way to cause issues for some guests. Sure we had fresh flowers but at least here there have been no scents at church or for public gatherings for a very long time.

I'm sure some celebrity, somewhere has pumped in their "signature scent," but no...I don't think it's common practice for US weddings.

 

[handinpocket]

Wait a minute.....Harry couldn't even get "help" for his own mentally ill wife, yet he is now in a position of mental health?! He couldn't give an open and honest interview, but rather one filled with empty accusations and innuendo.....annnnnnd he is in charge of misinformation?!!!!!

 

[redrosesix]

It was in the news that Meghan thought the chapel had a musty smell.

ohhh...we do burn incense in the Anglican church sometimes. Not nearly as much as the Roman Catholic does though, and I thought she was Roman Catholic.

 

[redrosesix]

I'm sure some celebrity, somewhere has pumped in their "signature scent," but no...I don't think it's common practice for US weddings.

I've honestly never heard of it being done. it reminded me of how WDW uses scent. I haven't been there for 3 years but I can still remember the scent in AK Africa. But that's outside, which is different.

 

[redrosesix]

Today I read an article about that they might want to be like the Gates and Clooneys, but they might have harmed their chances to become part of this elite group, by giving this interview.

I wonder, if Harry and Meghan already knew about Zara and Mike Tindall's baby, before releasing the news about Harry's two jobs.

I think I was reading the same article while waiting for tech support to call. it had some good points, like how the Obamas don't give interviews where they talk about their families...they didn't say it as nicely as that. And how people like Bill and Melinda Gates might not want to associate with people who might later reveal their personal details ie. things they would never disclose themselves. The writer said their behaviour was more like the celebrity tier that does Dancing With the stars

I can't find it again but it's worth a read. We do need to think about how famous people, especially those that run foundations, present themselves to the public and what makes some more successful than others.

 

[snappy]

What a great look, H delayed announcing at least one of his new gigs until after the Oprah interview. Knowing he had landed more gigs, likely pulling in millions more than already announced, he still needed to publicly air his gripe with being cut off financially by his Dad. It really appears he is just taking his last shots and do as much damage is possible. Maybe Charles had an inkling that these announcement were coming too so he made an informed choice to cut the cord. Why throw money Harry’s way at this point?

 

[cabanafrau]

What a great look, H delayed announcing at least one of his new gigs until after the Oprah interview. Knowing he had landed more gigs, likely pulling in millions more than already announced, he still needed to publicly air his gripe with being cut off financially by his Dad. It really appears he is just taking his last shots and do as much damage is possible. Maybe Charles had an inkling that these announcement were coming too so he made an informed choice to cut the cord. Why throw money Harry’s way at this point?

My takeaway about the financials from the interview was that Harry felt the family was obligated to cover the costs of their protection because it's not his fault he was born into the family and creating the situation where he has a public profile requiring security. I actually think it's likely they would have kept their security if they had stepped out of formal duties and remained in the UK. Declaring they didn't want to serve as senior royals, deciding to follow their own plans and ignore any other input and taking off for Canada were choices they were free to make. Unfortunately they found out they didn't have carte blanche to call the shots any way they wanted and retain royal perks where they chose.

But of course that's not the way H&M wanted to tell the story, so they spun it as they chose -- and then resorted to safety from potential criticism by invoking Diana's name. They know full well that it just looks bad if you attempt to challenge anything they say after tossing Diana's name in a conversation, because it just looks like you're harassing a little boy who tragically lost his mother. Their pattern of repeatedly steering the narrative directly into sacred cows again and again is another reason I don't find them credible. It's a tactic I've seen exploited on a routine basis to curry favor and sway opinion by leaving the other side with little or no room to dispute what was said without stirring up a hornet's nest because some things are all but impossible to even begin to probe for veracity.

The fact several of Meghan's friends are coming forward to say they know what was said in the interview is true because she had revealed the problems to them at the time is also a ding against the credibility of the claims IMO. Garden variety criminal defendants play that game at a professional level all the time too. Part of evaluating when you believe what someone is telling you involves taking a hard look at the person's own interest in the outcome or a reason for them to have a bias.

 

[snappy]

I agree that Harry should have known to manage expectations re: financial help on security once they decided to leave Great Britain. Not only were they stepping away, but not exactly in the neighborhood anymore. I don’t know whether or not the rest of the RF expected them to move to North America at any point. I guess it was always a possibility since Meghan is American, but it did not appear that she had many close family relationships that were a pull on her other than her mom. I imagine that she has friends in the USA, it seems to me that Harry is moving on from family and friends, and redirecting himself to his business endeavors and his nuclear family. It actually sounds like H&M were planning to exit Great Britain fairly early in the game from what they have disclosed, but its hard to rely much on what they put out there.

 

[NotUrsula]

Besides all that, it is a good bet that one of the expenses that Charles' faction is going to want to reduce is Security; and by that I mean warm bodies. I suspect that like many organizations that once used a lot of human guards, he will direct that a lot of them be replaced by technological safeguards. While those certainly are not cheap, they don't come anywhere near the cost of large squads of trained and salaried protection officers, with the attendant equipment and accomodations that come along with them. I have a feeling that pretty soon the only time guards will be routinely used is at Crown-owned residences and during official public appearances in public venues, and that protectees who feel they are routinely needed in other situations will be welcome to pay up to get them. I'm sure that the government will of course monitor intelligence channels and respond to credible threats as needed, but this idea of needing trained bodyguards for protection from the press is strange and extreme.

When it comes to paparazzi, all you have to do to get rid of them is stand still and let them take the photo. If you consistently let them have photos they will go away, because there will no longer be any "exclusive" value in the images, and thus no good compensation for getting them. The threat of cameras does not force anyone into physical danger unless they choose to go to precipitous lengths to avoid them. Charles himself is proof of that; paparazzi think he's dull as ditchwater, and for years now have mostly left him alone except when other members of his family drag him into newsworthy situations.

 

[snappy]

Besides all that, it is a good bet that one of the expenses that Charles' faction is going to want to reduce is Security; and by that I mean warm bodies. I suspect that like many organizations that once used a lot of human guards, he will direct that a lot of them be replaced by technological safeguards. While those certainly are not cheap, they don't come anywhere near the cost of large squads of trained and salaried protection officers, with the attendant equipment and accomodations that come along with them. I have a feeling that pretty soon the only time guards will be routinely used is at Crown-owned residences and during official public appearances in public venues, and that protectees who feel they are routinely needed in other situations will be welcome to pay up to get them. I'm sure that the government will of course monitor intelligence channels and respond to credible threats as needed, but this idea of needing trained bodyguards for protection from the press is strange and extreme.

When it comes to paparazzi, all you have to do to get rid of them is stand still and let them take the photo. If you consistently let them have photos they will go away, because there will no longer be any "exclusive" value in the images, and thus no good compensation for getting them. The threat of cameras does not force anyone into physical danger unless they choose to go to precipitous lengths to avoid them. Charles himself is proof of that; paparazzi think he's dull as ditchwater, and for years now have mostly left him alone except when other members of his family drag him into newsworthy situations.

I think you are right about reducing the number of warm bodies, especially during the pandemic.

 

[bcla]

I am very aware of Harry’s background. But my question was in response to posters familiar with non-profits and at least one saying that a lot of education was required for the position he was just awarded.

Again, would that normally be a position awarded to someone with a high school education and military background? Is a college education and/or advanced degree normally something that is required? Or is it the type of thing where he was hired for who he is (and who he knows)? That is what I am trying to get at. I am not familiar with how this works in that type of company. In my line of work you either have degrees or you don’t, so I am trying to understand. In the picture on the website it looks like the CEO has at least a bachelor‘s degree. As honorary as a military career is, I’m not sure if, at least here in the US, it takes the place of a degree. I thought that’s what the GI Bill was about - help for military people to obtain a formal education. Would appreciate anyone who knows about these things chiming in! Thanks

Private organizations can choose their own criteria for hiring. I worked with someone who was in a position where most people have a college degree, but he has 30 years of practical experience. We have people who are college dropouts or even never went to college who are in high level positions at startup companies. Certainly for Silicon Valley it isn't unusual. Steve Jobs had a high school degree and one semester at Reed College where he withdrew from classes. Steve Wozniak was expelled from the University of Colorado, reenrolled in a community college, and dropped out of UC Berkeley to start working.

Harry has 10 years as a commissioned officer in the British Army. I'd be surprised if there aren't companies/organizations that would look at that even if they would normally be looking to hire a college graduate for a particular position. At a certainly I'd think someone would have proof of ability that bypasses having a college degree.

Think about American military brass who attended West Point and Annapolis at a time when they didn't award a college degree. In many ways I think a college degree is overrated when someone has already demonstrated organizational understanding and leadership.