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

[BayouQueen]

Gosh, I'm not really thinking of these positions in terms of a "job" that requires a certain resume. I keep thinking in terms of people who are put on Boards of Directors, which can be totally arbitrary and they just want high-profile, well-connected people. Which certainly Harry is that.

 

[snappy]

Gosh, I'm not really thinking of these positions in terms of a "job" that requires a certain resume. I keep thinking in terms of people who are put on Boards of Directors, which can be totally arbitrary and they just want high-profile, well-connected people. Which certainly Harry is that.

A problem I see with that, in my experience of working for a Fortune 500 company, is the board members are not highly compensated. They may received a retainer and then a fee for the quarterly board meetings, but not the big bucks I think Harry is seeking.

 

[redrosesix]

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.

I think you're right. Security details are decided by the Metropolitan Police when they're within the UK and they're based on many factors including known threats. They don't provide much outside the UK...the majority is provided by the country they're visiting. Understandably they don't talk much about who gets what. They would have had at least some security within the UK and even more if threat levels increased. It works the same way for Members of Parliament.

This sort of reminds me of when I moved into my own house and realized I had to buy a rake and a snow shovel...just the extra costs of being independent

 

[Princessclab]

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

I am thinking you mean me here.
I was talking about the area of Organizational Development which in my perception of the BetterUp company, seems to be.
In my experience, there is at least a bachelors degree required but more than not people have graduate degrees. It is an area which skill is needed to be developed to be good at it. I am in the US.
Hope this helps.

 

[bcla]

I think you're right. Security details are decided by the Metropolitan Police when they're within the UK and they're based on many factors including known threats. They don't provide much outside the UK...the majority is provided by the country they're visiting. Understandably they don't talk much about who gets what. They would have had at least some security within the UK and even more if threat levels increased. It works the same way for Members of Parliament.

They had somewhat of a diplomatic status when they were in Canada, until they changed their status in the Royal Family. The exact verbiage was that they were considered "Internationally Protected Persons" while active members of the Royal Family. In the United States that kind of protection is provided by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, but I guess in Canada that's one duty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pp/index-eng.htm​

Internationally Protected Persons may also receive Protective Services while in Canada. Some of these individuals may include:​

• Heads of State
• Foreign government officials
• Any foreign national who is designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harry-meghan-security-costs-rcmp-canada-1.5478022​

"As the Duke and Duchess are currently recognized as Internationally Protected Persons, Canada has an obligation to provide security assistance on an as-needed basis. At the request of the Metropolitan Police, the RCMP has been providing assistance to the Met since the arrival of the Duke and Duchess to Canada intermittently since November 2019. The assistance will cease in the coming weeks, in keeping with their change in status."​

 

[redrosesix]

since we've been discussing where Harry's money comes from, I searched for an article on how the RF makes their money. Lo and behold I found an ok one on one of Oprah's websites They got a few things wrong; for example, Prince Andrew no longer gets payments from the Duchy of Lancaster. It's only for working royals and he has been removed from all royal duties. There are a ton of articles, including one entitled 50 Times Meghan Broke Royal Protocol. The Duchy of Cornwall is basically Charles' money that he chooses to share with his sons. When Charles becomes king, control of the Duchy passes to William and he can share it with his children. This Duchy always belongs to the heir and has been since 1337 (they said 1137, but that's wrong). Prince Charles did cut Harry off from Duchy funds, but he has given Harry hundreds of thousands of his own money since then.

https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/tv-movies/a29862205/british-royal-family-money/

I'm also adding a link to a website that I like called Who Owns England. I got interested in this topic several years ago when people realized the rent for one of our parks was 4 years overdue -- it's technically land owned by the Queen. We didn't lose the park because they had a ceremony and paid up the 4 shillings that were owed (about 40 cents).

https://whoownsengland.org/2017/03/15/what-land-does-the-duchy-of-cornwall-own/

The Duchy of Cornwall owns a lot of land that it rents at modest rates to various government agencies at all levels and to private businesses. For example, it owns the land that Dartmoor Prison was built on. Many public buildings, public housing and parks are built on land owned by the duchies.

This is one of the issues that has bothered me since the interview. I've seen comments all over the place, including American news/talk shows, that today's RF gets all of its money from investments it made from income from the Atlantic Slave Trade and pillaged from the colonies -- that the RF have always been racist and that we shouldn't be surprised that they treated Meghan this way. Their holdings are actually much older than that and much of it is land taken from the Roman Catholic Church, land taken from enemies in their civil war, and land that came into the family through marriages. I really dislike when people make incendiary statements that have no basis in fact or are only a tiny piece of a bigger picture. History is much more complicated than that.

PS. I feel like Oprah's staff get too many things wrong. They need to fact check and proofread more before they publish, as with the interview and the "British" press headlines.

 

[redrosesix]

They had somewhat of a diplomatic status when they were in Canada, until they changed their status in the Royal Family. The exact verbiage was that they were considered "Internationally Protected Persons" while active members of the Royal Family. In the United States that kind of protection is provided by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, but I guess in Canada that's one duty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pp/index-eng.htm​

Internationally Protected Persons may also receive Protective Services while in Canada. Some of these individuals may include:​

• Heads of State
• Foreign government officials
• Any foreign national who is designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harry-meghan-security-costs-rcmp-canada-1.5478022​

"As the Duke and Duchess are currently recognized as Internationally Protected Persons, Canada has an obligation to provide security assistance on an as-needed basis. At the request of the Metropolitan Police, the RCMP has been providing assistance to the Met since the arrival of the Duke and Duchess to Canada intermittently since November 2019. The assistance will cease in the coming weeks, in keeping with their change in status."​

This.

I don't think many Canadians were willing to pay for their security. We have many of our own famous people who get no funding from taxpayers for security (I'm sure Sid Crosby's house is known to the local RCMP but that's about it). This was an especially toxic subject given that most Canadians are just ok with having the Queen as our head of state, but we have better things to do than to renegotiate our constitution...like hockey. For more on this topic, please watch This Hour has 22 Minutes. Joking, but not really joking.

 

[TLSnell1981]

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.

The Queen suggested a smaller affair. It's not what H&M wanted. They wanted the grand spectacle just like the future King and Queen.

 

[bcla]

I am thinking you mean me here.
I was talking about the area of Organizational Development which in my perception of the BetterUp company, seems to be.
In my experience, there is at least a bachelors degree required but more than not people have graduate degrees. It is an area which skill is needed to be developed to be good at it. I am in the US.
Hope this helps.

I know of a lot of people who have gotten jobs through connections and other personal relationships. The CEO says that they were introduced through a mutual friend.

https://apnews.com/article/alexi-robichaux-betterup-prince-harry-f6f7676094b92f353bcca8d4878ffd33

 

[Karin1984]

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.

It was a column in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...and-meghan-if-you-want-to-hang-with-a-listers
She basically says that the really rich, famous, humanitarian people of these world operate a very similar method as the royal family based on 'never explain, never complain'.

Final paragraph of the column:
I wish the couple only well, because – chrissakes! – why not? However, they may have catastrophically miscalculated reverting to Meghan’s Suits-level fame strategy (Push. Publicise. Repeat.). When (oh, the irony!) the royal family’s oft-maligned, tightly buttoned “never explain, never complain” reserve would have far better endeared them to the elite circles they wish to join. They say you should dress for the job you want, and perhaps, exposure-wise, the Sussexes should have maintained self-control for the social position they want. It’s a bit late now.

 

[Princessclab]

I know of a lot of people who have gotten jobs through connections and other personal relationships. The CEO says that they were introduced through a mutual friend.

https://apnews.com/article/alexi-robichaux-betterup-prince-harry-f6f7676094b92f353bcca8d4878ffd33

Oh, I have no doubt that this is how this happened.

We have all worked with those people who aren't qualified for the position but were hired because they 'know' somebody.
It is all fine until you have to carry someone because they can't do the job and you are expected to pick up the extra work.....

 

[Karin1984]

Oh, I have no doubt that this is how this happened.

We have all worked with those people who aren't qualified for the position but were hired because they 'know' somebody.
It is all fine until you have to carry someone because they can't do the job and you are expected to pick up the extra work.....

That is the thing, they know they got all their deals on their titles, not on their knowledge or skills. They know the pressure is on to perform well. With Netflix and Spotify it will be more noticeable if they won't perform up to expectations, than with Harry's start ups.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Also, resentment builds if he’s getting all the attention, but not pulling his weight. “Harry’s not here again today.” Or is he there just for the notoriety and everyone understands that. I suppose time will tell.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Just as a matter of information NO ONE graduates from school over here you take gsce's and a levels there is no graduation just getting your results. Harrys gsce's and a levels where not enough points to get him into Sandhurst so he got in due to his family. The family they trashed and every comment on news or YouTube has people claiming Charles denied Archie his right to be a prince because of his colour. This rule was written 100 years before Harrys son was born so how could that make it racist? I think it was due to the large number of members of the royal family at the time its now going to be reduced to the same number of the royal families in Europe. This is an institution that has lasted 1200 years and no way should be destroyed by the duke and duchess of brat

 

[cabanafrau]

Also, resentment builds if he’s getting all the attention, but not pulling his weight. “Harry’s not here again today.” Or is he there just for the notoriety and everyone understands that. I suppose time will tell.

Totally depends if they pursued him for the value he brings to their letterhead, or if in fact they need him to actually engage in the business and participate in his role.

 

[snappy]

Totally depends if they pursued him for the value he brings to their letterhead, or if in fact they need him to actually engage in the business and participate in his role.

Right, but Better up is a start-up. Usually it‘s more all hands on deck.

 

[cabanafrau]

Right, but Better up is a start-up. Usually it‘s more all hands on deck.

That's true, but his hands on deck may be most valuable in raising their profile and legitimizing them, or in attracting additional funding.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

That's true, but his hands on deck may be most valuable in raising their profile and legitimizing them, or in attracting additional funding.

Well, we’ll see if he’s there for that. It sounds like he’s pretty well stretched, with his two new jobs, Netflix and Spotify deals, a toddler, and a new baby on the way - that we know of.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Tom Bowers is writing a book on Meghan...alleged annulment, divorce, domestic partner, when she met Harry, throwing hot tea on a servant in OZ, etc. This will not be a flattering unauthorized biography. She’s asked for this. IMO

 

[snappy]

Tom Bowers is writing a book on Meghan...alleged annulment, divorce, domestic partner, when she met Harry, throwing hot tea on a servant in OZ, etc. This will not be a flattering unauthorized biography. She’s asked for this. IMO

Not all scrutiny is as sympathetic as Oprah. I see trouble coming.