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

[Cheburashka]

Well apparently the Queen won't be watching, but will be briefed over breakfast tomorrow by her courtiers.

I don't believe for a second that the Queen won't watch it. She reads all of the British tabloids daily to keep up with how the royals are being publicly perceived. She's watched every other royal train wreck interview. There is no way that she is not going to watch this when it's global news and also directly affects the royals. She needs to know, first hand, what those two are putting out there. She takes responsibility for keeping informed, and won't leave it to an aide to interpret it for her. She might not watch it live for scheduling reasons, but I'm sure she will watch the entire thing within a day or two of its airing, to see it for herself. The palace is undoubtedly trying to lower public interest and anticipation, by suggesting that the Queen won't be watching it along with everyone else.

 

[mamamia2005]

I don't believe for a second that the Queen won't watch it. She reads all of the British tabloids daily to keep up with how the royals are being publicly perceived. She's watched every other royal train wreck interview. There is no way that she is not going to watch this when it's global news and directly affects the royals. She needs to know, first hand, what those two are putting out there. She takes responsibility for keeping informed, and won't leave it to an aide to interpret it for her. She might not watch it live for scheduling reasons, but I'm sure she will watch the entire thing within a day or two of its airing, to see it for herself.

It's being broadcast here in the UK at 9pm on Monday evening.
But, as you say she could probably read it word for word online if she chooses as soon as she's up in the morning!

 

[snappy]

Funny but I don’t think this interview was even a thing back when this thread began in early January. I didn’t have an inkling about the Oprah interview back then but maybe I was out of the loop. Can’t say I follow Oprah lol

 

[mamamia2005]

Remember that by the time Harry and Meghan first moved to Canada last year, Harry had reportedly spent months trying to get the Queen/palace to address this issue of H&M wanting to “step back” and they kept getting brushed off. So, they finally took matters into their own hands, left, and released their own statement. Then the Queen/palace wanted to turn it into some year long “trial period,” presumably because someone had the idea they were going to regret their decision and want to come running back to royal life. Now a year has passed, H&M are still choosing the life of private citizens in sunny California, and the palace is now taking an “all in or all out” attitude, severing whatever remaining ties they can. Drama, drama, drama.

Imagine if the first and only thing we ever heard about it was a statement from the Queen saying, “Our dear Harry, only sixth in line to the throne and therefore unnecessary to the continuation of the monarchy anyway, and his beloved wife Meghan have decided to move abroad to pursue personal interests. They will remain involved in the charities they care so deeply about and will return to the UK for special occasions and to perform the occasional royal duty. (Don’t worry, we’ll sort all the financials so the British taxpayer isn’t paying for any of their personal expenses.) We wish them nothing but success and happiness in their new ventures and are eagerly looking forward to having them visit soon.” Bonus points if the Queen worked YOLO! into the statement.

Now, wouldn’t that have been a whole lot simpler and less gossip-worthy than what’s been going on for the past year? I can’t help but think the palace made this a bigger issue than necessary because of their inability to let go and let two grown adults make decisions about their own lives.

And that would have been fine and dandy, if those same two grown adults hadn't acted like toddlers wanting lots of attention whilst crying out they wanted a private life!

 

[Cheburashka]

Sugar Mag was making a direct comparison of Meghan to Andrew, because they have a noticeable amount in common, both having been accused of inappropriate behavior towards those they hold power over, in cases that are currently still unfolding and unresolved. Showing the glaring difference in how the palace has responded to the two situations is relevant to the discussion because it shows either A) they regard the allegations against Meghan as worse than the allegations against Andrew, or B) they’re inflating the Meghan issue to take attention off of Andrew.

The palace is not in charge of prosecuting Epstein-related crimes. That is the American law enforcement & judicial system's job. The palace has already responded to the accusations (there are no charges at this time) by removing Andrew from royal public life and taking away his patronages. The palace can't launch an investigation of Andrew- they don't have the authority to investigate people accused of crimes alleged to have been committed overseas.

The palace is in charge of managing complaints from palace staff whistleblowers who report harassment of employees by royals. That is their responsibility, and that is why they're investigating it.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

A) they regard the allegations against Meghan as worse than the allegations against Andrew

No one is investigating Meghan or Harry’s conduct. The Royal Households regard the allegations made by employees/former employees, that one or more of the Households, did not properly follow procedures and investigate complaints of bullying and harassment made by staff, as a matter requiring investigation. This is what any employer in the U.K. would do, when faced with similar complaints from employees. It is a matter of basic employment law. Every employer has to have a written code of conduct and formal grievance procedure etc., and if the Royal Households do not, or if they do, but failed to follow them, then staff are entitled to complain and request an investigation. If they do not, the employees could commence legal proceedings.
I suggest, that the allegation that Prince Andrew is not co operating as a witness to an alleged crime, is easily addressed by the U.S. authorities. Perhaps the fact that the U.S. authorities have not requested to interview Prince Andrew or subpoenaed him, speaks for itself. As far as I am aware, Prince Andrew remains a potential witness and there is no suggestion that U.S. authorities wish to arrest him or charge him with an offence.

 

[snappy]

And that would have been fine and dandy, if those same two grown adults hadn't acted like toddlers wanting lots of attention whilst crying out they wanted a private life!

It’s kind of like saying I want my cake and eat it too. My kids did this at the toddler stage.

 

[Cheburashka]

Harry had reportedly spent months trying to get the Queen/palace to address this issue of H&M wanting to “step back” and they kept getting brushed off. So, they finally took matters into their own hands, left, and released their own statement. Then the Queen/palace wanted to turn it into some year long “trial period,” presumably because someone had the idea they were going to regret their decision and want to come running back to royal life.

Actually, Harry suggested the half-in, half-out scenario to his father, who told him that would not be possible and that the Queen would never agree to it, so Harry then approached the Queen in person, who asked him to write up a formal proposal for her to review, after which they would discuss plans for potential scenarios and discuss their viability at that point. Rather than working with the Queen as she requested, the couple wrote up their half-in, half-out plan online and shared it with the world, without even notifying the Queen or anyone else in the royal family. It seems very likely they did so in an attempt to force the Queen's hand, but she stood firm, so it didn't work.

The Queen gave them a trial period because as one can't be half-in, half-out, the couple could only be out (since they wouldn't stay in), and she wanted to make sure that worked for them before severing all ties. She knew they hadn't wanted to be completely out (they made that very clear at the time & Harry still does), so she wanted to give them a buffer zone.

The Queen has bent over backward to accommodate this couple. Too much so, imo.

 

[Cheburashka]

It's being broadcast here in the UK at 9pm on Monday evening.
But, as you say she could probably read it word for word online if she chooses as soon as she's up in the morning!

Yes, and I still think she's going to actually watch it as soon as she gets the chance. Body language and tone of voice convey a lot, and one can only gauge how effectively a message gets across in a video interview by actually watching the interview.

It's one thing to read Diana's Panorama interview, and a whole other thing to watch it. I'm sure the Queen is going to watch this one, too.

 

[snappy]

Yea I think the time to cut the cord has come and gone.

 

[mamamia2005]

Yes, and I still think she's going to actually watch it as soon as she gets the chance. Body language and tone of voice convey a lot, and one can only gauge how effectively a message gets across in a video interview by actually watching the interview.

It's one thing to read Diana's Panorama interview, and a whole other thing to watch it. I'm sure the Queen is going to watch this one, too.

Well I think we can be sure that the body language and what its expected to convey will have been worked out and rehearsed in advance

 

[Cheburashka]

Well I think we can be sure that the body language and what its expected to convey will have been worked out and rehearsed in advance

I wonder if Oprah gave the couple the interview questions in advance, the way Martin Bashir did to Diana, so she could rehearse with answers already prepped.

 

[mamamia2005]

I wonder if Oprah gave the couple the interview questions in advance, the way Martin Bashir did to Diana, so she could rehearse with answers already prepped.

I would even go as far as to say Oprah was told what some of the questions should be!

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

The Queen’s Commonwealth Day speech earlier today.

 

[Cheburashka]

I would even go as far as to say Oprah was told what some of the questions should be!

Good point. I can easily imagine Meghan & Oprah chatting beforehand, with Oprah asking, "What are your goals for this interview?", and then writing the interview questions accordingly.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that this isn't going to be a hard-hitting interview, that a lot of substance will get glossed over, and that the hard questions will not be asked. I'm not a fan of Martin Bashir, but I admit that at least he asked Diana some really hard questions, even though he did tell them to her in advance so she wouldn't be stumped.

 

[snappy]

Wait, you mean there won’t be questions submitted by either a live or online audience?

 

[snappy]

Harry & Meghan's apologists say, "What about Andrew?"

Then Andrew's apologists say, "What about Bill Cosby?"

Then Bill Cosby's apologists say, "What about Charles Manson?"

Then Charles Manson's apologists say, "What about Hitler?"

How about everyone being held accountable for their own actions, and not evading responsibility by bringing up those who have done even greater wrong?

Reminds me of what my mom used to tell me when I was young.

 

[mousefan73]

Andrew has already been removed from public royal life, and has lost all of his patronages. He wasn't even in the official photos for his second daughter's wedding. So it's not like the palace is turning a blind eye to the accusations against him.

Beyond that, he has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty: he's not even being prosecuted or officially under investigation at this point. If he's ever prosecuted or proven guilty of anything, that would be a different situation. And as another poster alluded, there were many, many other prominent people (including Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Alan Dershowitz and Stephen Hawking) who were involved with Epstein. Epstein had huge social clout with powerful A-listers. Ghislaine Maxwell was at Chelsea Clinton's wedding, for goodness sake. Yet we only keep hearing about Andrew, likely because he's a royal and therefore his status is (was) higher than all the others. If the FBI actually decides to prosecute all of people who were on that island and were intimate with the young women controlled by Epstein, a lot of famous people are going to go down.

None of that changes Meghan & Harry's issues, though. Saying, "what about Andrew?" when serious problems with this couple are brought up, is like saying, "what about that bank robber?" when one is caught stealing a car. It's just an evasion.

Keeping in mind also depending on where the accused sex act took place determines if this in fact a crime. 17 is in most countries no longer a child when it comes to consent. Heck in Germany the age of consent is 14!!!!! I was shocked. No don’t get me wrong I am not defending Princess Andrewn if he actually did do this it’s gross and morally wrong. But a lot of headlines out there / Twitter accusing him of being a child pedophile are legally speaking maybe inaccurate

In the UK the 17-year-old when it comes to sex is totally legally an adult

 

[mousefan73]

Have we done a pool to guess what statements or news will come out of this tonight? I am thinking of some things I would bet money on..... let me put this all down... hmmmmm

 

[TipsyTraveler]

The palace is not in charge of prosecuting Epstein-related crimes. That is the American law enforcement & judicial system's job. The palace has already responded to the accusations (there are no charges at this time) by removing Andrew from royal public life and taking away his patronages. The palace can't launch an investigation of Andrew- they don't have the authority to investigate accused people of crimes alleged to have been committed overseas.

The palace is in charge of managing complaints from palace staff whistleblowers who report harassment of employees by royals. That is their responsibility, and that is why they're investigating it.

Andrew invited someone with an active warrant for sex crimes into Windsor Castle. He opened up the throne room so Ghislane Maxwell could be photographed chilling on the throne. And, one of the “alleged incidents” took place while he was on official duty. These aren’t things the palace would be interested in looking into? They certainly fall under the palace’s jurisdiction.

No one is investigating Meghan or Harry’s conduct. The Royal Households regard the allegations made by employees/former employees, that one or more of the Households, did not properly follow procedures and investigate complaints of bullying and harassment made by staff, as a matter requiring investigation. This is what any employer in the U.K. would do, when faced with similar complaints from employees. It is a matter of basic employment law. Every employer has to have a written code of conduct and formal grievance procedure etc., and if the Royal Households do not, or if they do, but failed to follow them, then staff are entitled to complain and request an investigation. If they do not, the employees could commence legal proceedings.
I suggest, that the allegation that Prince Andrew is not co operating as a witness to an alleged crime, is easily addressed by the U.S. authorities. Perhaps the fact that the U.S. authorities have not requested to interview Prince Andrew or subpoenaed him, speaks for itself. As far as I am aware, Prince Andrew remains a potential witness and there is no suggestion that U.S. authorities wish to arrest him or charge him with an offence.

The striking difference I see, as someone on the outside, between how these two “scandals” are being handled is in the amount of “insider information” that’s being leaked, rumors from within, etc. For two years now, stories have been trickled to the press about Meghan’s behind-the-scenes behavior and now, days ahead of an Oprah interview, staff are wanting to speak out and an internal investigation has been launched (which has been conveniently made known to the world instead of remaining internal.) Has the same been true on the Andrew side of things? It seems like those on the inside have done a much better job of keeping mum about his behind-the-scenes behavior.

Actually, Harry suggested the half-in, half-out scenario to his father, who told him that would not be possible and that the Queen would never agree to it, so Harry then approached the Queen in person, who asked him to write up a formal proposal for her to review, after which they would discuss plans for potential scenarios and discuss their viability at that point. Rather than working with the Queen as she requested, the couple wrote up their half-in, half-out plan online and shared it with the world, without even notifying the Queen or anyone else in the royal family. It seems very likely they did so in an attempt to force the Queen's hand, but she stood firm, so it didn't work.

The Queen gave them a trial period because as one can't be half-in, half-out, the couple could only be out (since they wouldn't stay in), and she wanted to make sure that worked for them before severing all ties. She knew they hadn't wanted to be completely out (they made that very clear at the time & Harry still does), so she wanted to give them a buffer zone.

The Queen has bent over backward to accommodate the couple. Far too much so, imo.

At which point, she reportedly blew him off for months refusing to address the issue. I’m just saying, the Queen/palace handled this poorly from the beginning and had a hand in creating this mess. If they had addressed it head on when Harry first brought it up, the Sussexes wouldn’t have felt the need to take matters into their own hands. Even if the answer was “you’re all in or you’re all out,” it could have been resolved quickly and completely behind-the-scenes.