History Talk: The British Monarchy

[ProudMary]

One more that's just too hilarious not to share; the front page of Thursday's New York Post:

 

 

[Roseanna]

13 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The press harasses her just as they harassed Diana.  He has tried appealing to them, and tried to focus on things they care about, but all of it in vain.  He has lived through this horror before, and has said he wants to protect his wife and child.

Diana manipulated the press for years to revenge on Charles and also because she enjoyed all admiration and needed it. Only too late, after losing her royal title, she realized that she couldn no more control publicity.

Harry has learned nothing from his mother's fate. If you open yourselves your private life, it's no use to appeal to the media afterward. The same if you don't want to give the media "what's usual".   

Giving up the royal duties and moving abroad will only increase the media attention without having any means to protect themselves.  

11 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I think he does owe them an explanation, regardless of the situation. They basically ditched their official obligations without warning. This isn't the way to calm the waters. It's immature, petty, and dumb. At least shoot a copy of the press release over to everyone five minutes before it gets posted online.

A scorched-earth approach might be satisfying now, but it usually brings regrets later. Harry and Meghan haven't been especially smart in their handling of the press, IMO. They can't win in some ways, but they could be a bit more measured when it comes to stuff like this.

It's true that the media hasn't dealt Meghan well.

But they did a big mistake when they in their interview in Africa basically admitted that the rumours were true. That was not a good way to protect their private life, it was just the opposite. 

9 hours ago, Crs97 said:

I think Harry gets many millions from his mother in inheritance so I have to chuckle at their needing to learn financial independence.  

 

1 hour ago, ProudMary said:

This could get interesting if the Duke and Duchess were forced to give up their titles.

Sussex Royal: The Making (and Protecting) of a Royal Foundation

From the article: "The announcement follows from media speculation that change was afoot for the two royals and their son, the 8-month old Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, and has prompted an array of questions, including whether the Duke and Duchess will keep their formal titles, which is an interesting inquiry given the two trademark applications for registration that were lodged with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) last year on behalf of their foundation. 

Originally filed in June 2019, the two trademark applications – one for “Sussex Royal” and the other for “Sussex Royal The Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” – made headlines last month when they were formally published by the UKIPO, thereby enabling anyone to “make observations on the acceptance or oppose the registration” of the marks, a formality in the registration process in which others, namely, other trademark holders that believe they might be damaged by the registration of a pending trademark application may oppose its registration."

 

Well, if they are really going to use their royal titles to earn money for themselves, although they have no need to do it because of Harry's inheritance from his mother, that's not "financial independence" but explotation.

[Ellaria]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

Diana manipulated the press for years to revenge on Charles and also because she enjoyed all admiration and needed it. Only too late, after losing her royal title, she realized that she couldn no more control publicity...

...Well, if they are really going to use their royal titles to earn money for themselves, although they have no need to do it because of Harry's inheritance from his mother, that's not "financial independence" but explotation.

Diana's life/death had a deeply serious, heartbreaking effect on Harry's life so I understand his negativity about press. And while the press did hound her, she manipulated them when she could. Both can be true. It doesn't make any of it less tragic.

As far as H&M, their statement is confusing. Are they abandoning their HRH titles? How long will "financial independence" take? Who will be paying for security in Canada, etc? I don't think that we know the details and perhaps that's what the Queen is "complaining" about in her statement.

12 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

My objection is how they disengaged from their official life, not the disengagement itself.

12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

All we have is a very brief statement from the palace about that.  We really don't KNOW that this is as "out of the blue" as that short statement crafted by the mustaches, indicates.  I wouldn't be surprised if private talks about this possibility have taken place, were dismissed, or ignored, or simply not believed serious.  No "declarations" until this one, but does anyone really believe this subject has never been broached?  Not even with his dad who is determined to throw most of the royals out of a job as soon as mommy dies?  

There is a lot of debate about what the "palace" knew and when they knew it. I, too, would be surprised to learn that there had NOT been private talks about them stepping away. Regardless, the Queen's statement sounds like a public admonishment  - "complicated issues that will take time to work through" - and that seems to be exactly what they are running away from. 

I think it is fair to say that all parties involved could have handled it better. However, a step like this was never going to be easy, clean and without hard feelings. 

 

[Roseanna]

On 1/8/2020 at 5:31 PM, Umbelina said:

OR, they made it a "done deal" because they knew the mustaches would never agree to this, and the Queen and the rest of the family would try to browbeat and shame them into doing things the way "it's always been done."

He wants off the UK dole, and wants to live his life, as does his wife.  I honestly see nothing wrong with that, which is probably at least partly because I think a Monarchy is outmoded and patently ridiculous.  Sorry, but I do.

He was born into this rather absurd archaic privileged world, he saw his mother die at a very young age, after being harassed by the press and the palace for years.  He's had to watch his wife go through personal attacks, including racial attacks, by the same press that helped kill, and certainly helped destroy any chance at happiness for his beloved mother.

He wants to walk away, support himself, and get the hell out of hostile England and finally, once and for all, live his chosen life.  He's 6th in line now anyway, suck it up Royal Family, or keep a few more of the hangers on "royals" employed for a bit longer to cut ribbons and open factories.  

Further he and she intend to devote much of their life to charitable causes that matter to them and the world.

This isn't some spoiled brat running away from home, IMO, it's a man who cares about his wife and child, thinks that the whole royal system is a waste of his time and effort, wants to stop taking money from them, earn his own way (Diana left him money, and Megan has money from her work) and live a happy life away from men wearing giant ridiculous hats and livery, horse drawn carriages, arcane and embarrassing rules, and get on with his own desires, which include continuing to give back.

BRAVO.

The palace comparing this to the abdication is a bit over the top, since he is 6th in line, but I think what they really mean is "we have to maintain the Royals or we are all out of a job."  Including a dozen footmen for tea.

I think just the opposite: it's like the duke of Windsor - "it's only me and the woman I love, I don't care how it influences on the Queen my grandmother who has tried to support my wife even before our marriage and who has now just had a family scandal that has hurt her deeply but who has never complained in public, my brother who needs my support and help as I am the only one who can understand what he has experienced nor my country that is in crisis, I can't wait for a year or even a half, I want to get all but not give anything". 

Harry and Meghan could have decided *before* the marriage that they don't want a royal wedding, titles of duke and duchess, any taxpayer's money, a house repaired with millions of pounds etc. 

Or, if they realized only afterwards that the royal duties and the media attention was too much to them and if they were really adults, they could have discussed the situation and at least made the common announcement with the Queen, Charles and William.  

13 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

As far as H&M, their statement is confusing. Are they abandoning their HRH titles? How long will "financial independence" take? Who will be paying for security in Canada, etc? I don't think that we know the details and perhaps that's what the Queen is "complaining" about in her statement.

There is a lot of debate about what the "palace" knew and when they knew it. I, too, would be surprised to learn that there had NOT been private talks about them stepping away. Regardless, the Queen's statement sounds like a public admonishment  - "complicated issues that will take time to work through" - and that seems to be exactly what they are running away from. 

I think the statement means that the matters (titles, finance, house, security) haven't been solved yet, which means that Harry's position to negotiate is less favorable. Making an unilaterate announcement means that he can't demand anything from the Queen or his father, he gets only what they want to give out of mercy. 

13 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

However, a step like this was never going to be easy, clean and without hard feelings. 

I think Princess Madeleine of Sweden succeeded in this. Her husband refused the royal title before the marriage because he wants to continues to do business and support their family. The family lives abroad and Madeleine comes to Sweden f.ex. to Nobel festivals and for a summer holiday. And lately the king announces that the children of Madeleine and her brother, while being princes and princesses, aren't HRH and can lead a private life.

13 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Diana's life/death had a deeply serious, heartbreaking effect on Harry's life so I understand his negativity about press. And while the press did hound her, she manipulated them when she could. Both can be true. It doesn't make any of it less tragic.

Let's remember what tragedy meant in the ancient Greece: a person who was otherwise virtuous, makes an error of judgment out of ignorance. F.ex. Oedipus doesn't know that the man he kills is father nor that the woman whom he marries is his mother. 

Now, if Harry is really an adult, he can't defend himself that he is still traumatized by his mother's death - he had had enough time time to get therapy (and as far I know, he had had it for years) - and therefore refuse to understand that his media strategy will backfire.

[Ellaria]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

I think the statement means that the matters (titles, finance, house, security) haven't been solved yet, which means that Harry's position to negotiate is less favorable. Making an unilaterate announcement means that he can't demand anything from the Queen or his father, he gets only what they want to give out of mercy. 

It doesn't say that the matters of titles, finances, etc have or have not been solved. That's the confusion. Until the palace and/or Harry issue a statement about it, we won't know anything for sure.

 

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

I think Princess Madeleine of Sweden succeeded in this. Her husband refused the royal title before the marriage because he wants to continues to do business and support their family. The family lives abroad and Madeleine comes to Sweden f.ex. to Nobel festivals and for a summer holiday. And lately the king announces that the children of Madeleine and her brother, while being princes and princesses, aren't HRH and can lead a private life.

That's nice for them. This is a different family and a different country with a different history. It may not be the same. 

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

Let's remember what tragedy meant in the ancient Greece: a person who was otherwise virtuous, makes an error of judgment out of ignorance. F.ex. Oedipus doesn't know that the man he kills is father nor that the woman whom he marries is his mother. 

Now, if Harry is really an adult, he can't defend himself that he is still traumatized by his mother's death - he had had enough time time to get therapy (and as far I know, he had had it for years) - and therefore refuse to understand that his media strategy will backfire.

None of us should decide when Harry is officially "over" his mother's death or how those events affect his life going forward. Those events may inform his views of the press for the rest of his life. None of that seems unreasonable.

IMO, it is unfair to judge him on that account. Regardless of the definition of "tragic" that is used, Diana's death was sad and untimely. 

I would never presume to instruct or criticize any individual about how to deal with the death of a parent, especially when it happens at such a young age.

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

None of us should decide when Harry is officially "over" his mother's death or how those events affect his life going forward. Those events may inform his views of the press for the rest of his life. None of that seems unreasonable.

IMO, it is unfair to judge him on that account. Regardless of the definition of "tragic" that is used, Diana's death was sad and untimely. 

I would never presume to instruct or criticize any individual about how to deal with the death of a parent, especially when it happens at such a young age.

How criticizing Harry is different from criticizing duke of Windsor ir Princess Margaret?

Or if one has right to criticize Charles from blaming his parents for or when he was in already in his forties, why must one understand Harry's follies in his thirties only because he lost his mother over twenty years ago (a fate that's not rare). 

Actually I wouldn't actually call criticizing if one tries to understand what kind of person is capable to survive in crisis and what things helps him to do so. That is, what is the difference between William and Harry? Their position (the heir and the spare)? Their age when their died, their character? Their media strategy? Their wife? That William has Kate's family as "ordinary people" to support them in Britain while Meghan has good relationship only with her mother overseas?  

[Umbelina]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Harry and Meghan could have decided *before* the marriage that they don't want a royal wedding, titles of duke and duchess, any taxpayer's money, a house repaired with millions of pounds etc. 

They had no way of knowing that Megan would be a constant target of the press.  The British Royal family practically EXISTS on these occassional BIG EVENTS that keep the whole "royalty is worth it, isn't this cool!" excitement going.  Every primary royal improves their home at partial tax-payer expense.

 

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Or, if they realized only afterwards that the royal duties and the media attention was too much to them and if they were really adults, they could have discussed the situation and at least made the common announcement with the Queen, Charles and William.

Already addressed.  I'd be completely astonished if private talks were not held, at least discussions, and immediately shut down.  

Charles has already said he's throwing dozens of royals off the dole as soon as he becomes King, including his own siblings' children.

Harry's 6th in line, Archie's 7th, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenia are 9th and 10th and already have been informed they are OUT soon.  Honestly, what is the difference?

Who cares?  It's all idiotic to support these people.

5 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Diana's life/death had a deeply serious, heartbreaking effect on Harry's life so I understand his negativity about press. And while the press did hound her, she manipulated them when she could. Both can be true. It doesn't make any of it less tragic.

As far as H&M, their statement is confusing. Are they abandoning their HRH titles? How long will "financial independence" take? Who will be paying for security in Canada, etc? I don't think that we know the details and perhaps that's what the Queen is "complaining" about in her statement.

There is a lot of debate about what the "palace" knew and when they knew it. I, too, would be surprised to learn that there had NOT been private talks about them stepping away. Regardless, the Queen's statement sounds like a public admonishment  - "complicated issues that will take time to work through" - and that seems to be exactly what they are running away from. 

I think it is fair to say that all parties involved could have handled it better. However, a step like this was never going to be easy, clean and without hard feelings. 

 

Exactly.

I do wonder about "handling it better" a little bit though.  No matter what, this was going to be an endless battle, and Harry, more than any of us, knows about the machine at Buckingham Palace.  There is NO WAY that machine would allow this.

This, in the end, might have been the least acrimonious and most effective way of resolving it.

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I think Princess Madeleine of Sweden succeeded in this. Her husband refused the royal title before the marriage because he wants to continues to do business and support their family. The family lives abroad and Madeleine comes to Sweden f.ex. to Nobel festivals and for a summer holiday. And lately the king announces that the children of Madeleine and her brother, while being princes and princesses, aren't HRH and can lead a private life.

Honestly, very few people in the world knows or cares about Sweden's royalty.  They aren't in the press, I personally couldn't pick one of them out of a line up.  The UK has a rich and vast former empire that directly touched most of the world.  

It's like comparing someone like Elizabeth Taylor with a bit player at a local actor's workshop.

What works for them obviously has no chance of working for Harry and Megan.

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Now, if Harry is really an adult, he can't defend himself that he is still traumatized by his mother's death - he had had enough time time to get therapy (and as far I know, he had had it for years) - and therefore refuse to understand that his media strategy will backfire.

He doesn't HAVE to defend himself.  Why SHOULD he be stuck in a life that doesn't work for him?  Why should he continue to play this idiotic and probably obsolete role?  Why should he put his son through what he suffered as a child, including a harassed mother and constant cameras?

As an adult he is saying, "no, this is not for me, and not for us."  

4 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

It doesn't say that the matters of titles, finances, etc have or have not been solved. That's the confusion. Until the palace and/or Harry issue a statement about it, we won't know anything for sure.

 

That's nice for them. This is a different family and a different country with a different history. It may not be the same. 

None of us should decide when Harry is officially "over" his mother's death or how those events affect his life going forward. Those events may inform his views of the press for the rest of his life. None of that seems unreasonable.

IMO, it is unfair to judge him on that account. Regardless of the definition of "tragic" that is used, Diana's death was sad and untimely. 

I would never presume to instruct or criticize any individual about how to deal with the death of a parent, especially when it happens at such a young age.

 

I agree.

As far as security, because of the whole mishmash of royalty and government?  It's hard to say, it may be like former presidents in the USA, who still must have security, long after they are out of office.

Obviously, the UK can't risk having the Queen's grandchild kidnapped, and later IF Charles is ever crowned King?  He can't have one of his children held hostage either.  

After an entire lifetime of being THE CROWN's little photo op and puppet though?  Protecting Harry and his family seems, not only prudent, but money well spent.  The Crown will save a ton of money on other support things for Harry which he has now said he no longer wants anyway.

As far as the HRH?  I doubt Harry wants or needs it, and my best guess is that he's leaving it up to them, that rejecting that straight out might feel too insulting to the crown, so he left it off.

As far as the Sussex Royal charity name?  Honestly, technically "royal" doesn't matter to a charity name, or business name.  Lot's of products and businesses use that word.  If Buckingham palace wants to get nasty, they could make a fuss, but WHY?  What would they gain from that?

[CountryGirl]

Given all the vitriol and outright hatred they've received for "leaving the royal family," (which, no, that's not how that works), Meghan and Harry did absolutely the right thing for their family.

Bravo to them!

ETA: 

Meghan and Harry have received shit from jump, going all the way back to when Harry dared to proposed marriage to an American and OMG, a woman of COLOR.  Well, I'm sure they got crap before that, but that's when it got insane levels of nasty

They gotten nothing but shit since, everything from Meghan being a fame-seeking, attention-driven, money-hungry ho to her faking her pregnancy.

To add insult to injury, they've received ZERO support from the senior members of the royal family, including Harry's own father and grandmother, the latter of whom is too busy coddling her favorite son aka pedophile Andrew, to pay a smidge of attention to the painful attacks on her grandson, granddaughter-in-law, and great-grandson. But of course, dear ol' Queenie is married to and adores known racist, Phillip, so not a shock whatsoever. Harry and Meghan owe them nothing and and of course the crown knew all about it so the pearl-clutching can cease anytime now.

Add in the fact that Harry lost his mother at a very tender age to a horrific car accident, caused by the press, an event which you NEVER get over, and it just makes perfect sense that he and Meghan would want to do everything in their power to protect themselves and their sweet, innocent baby son. Also, sure Diana used the press to her advantage on occasion (name one celebrity who hasn't) but she most certainly did not deserve to DIE for that.

GOOD.

FOR.

THEM.

Edited January 9, 2020 by CountryGirl

[Ohiopirate02]

10 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They had no way of knowing that Megan would be a constant target of the press.  The British Royal family practically EXISTS on these occassional BIG EVENTS that keep the whole "royalty is worth it, isn't this cool!" excitement going.  Every primary royal improves their home at partial tax-payer expense.

 

Already addressed.  I'd be completely astonished if private talks were not held, at least discussions, and immediately shut down.  

Charles has already said he's throwing dozens of royals off the dole as soon as he becomes King, including his own siblings' children.

Harry's 6th in line, Archie's 7th, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenia are 9th and 10th and already have been informed they are OUT soon.  Honestly, what is the difference?

Who cares?  It's all idiotic to support these people.

I do wonder about "handling it better" a little bit though.  No matter what, this was going to be an endless battle, and Harry, more than any of us, knows about the machine at Buckingham Palace.  There is NO WAY that machine would allow this.

This, in the end, might have been the least acrimonious and most effective way of resolving it.

 

I caught Kier Simmon's reporting this morning on the Today Show.  In his report he mentioned that The Sun already had the scoop on this decision.  So, the Queen and Charles were well aware of Harry and Meghan's plans.  It does fit into what we know Charles wants to do when he is king.  There is a possibility that Charles fully supports his son and daughter-in-law.  

Someone leaked the story, and the Sussexes announced before the story hit which is well within their right.  Who leaked the story is the interesting question to me.  That is one way to stall this from happening.  I think Harry and Meghan called BP's bluff.  

[Umbelina]

11 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I caught Kier Simmon's reporting this morning on the Today Show.  In his report he mentioned that The Sun already had the scoop on this decision.  So, the Queen and Charles were well aware of Harry and Meghan's plans.  It does fit into what we know Charles wants to do when he is king.  There is a possibility that Charles fully supports his son and daughter-in-law.  

Someone leaked the story, and the Sussexes announced before the story hit which is well within their right.  Who leaked the story is the interesting question to me.  That is one way to stall this from happening.  I think Harry and Meghan called BP's bluff.  

Interesting and not surprising to me if true.  "Sold" the story is also possible as well.  Fergie, have you been at it again?  Andrew, wanting to take the heat off his exploitation of young teenage girls?

Probably just a cog in the machine somewhere, but yeah, that makes complete sense of the "out of the blue" announcement from Harry and Megan.

[Ellaria]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I caught Kier Simmon's reporting this morning on the Today Show.  In his report he mentioned that The Sun already had the scoop on this decision.  So, the Queen and Charles were well aware of Harry and Meghan's plans.  It does fit into what we know Charles wants to do when he is king.  There is a possibility that Charles fully supports his son and daughter-in-law.  

Someone leaked the story, and the Sussexes announced before the story hit which is well within their right.  Who leaked the story is the interesting question to me.  That is one way to stall this from happening.  I think Harry and Meghan called BP's bluff.  

Very interesting. I'm sure this is exactly correct.

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

How criticizing Harry is different from criticizing duke of Windsor ir Princess Margaret?

Or if one has right to criticize Charles from blaming his parents for or when he was in already in his forties, why must one understand Harry's follies in his thirties only because he lost his mother over twenty years ago (a fate that's not rare). 

Actually I wouldn't actually call criticizing if one tries to understand what kind of person is capable to survive in crisis and what things helps him to do so. That is, what is the difference between William and Harry? Their position (the heir and the spare)? Their age when their died, their character? Their media strategy? Their wife? That William has Kate's family as "ordinary people" to support them in Britain while Meghan has good relationship only with her mother overseas?  

You were critical of the length of Harry's grieving process. IMO, that's very different that the other examples that you have provided. I also would not associate the use of the word "follies" with grief over the loss of a parent.

And you have the right to criticize any member of the royals that you want. However, I don't want to be corrected when I refer to Diana's death as tragic or say that believe that Harry may still be carrying grief over her death.

These are opinions, after all. None of us actually know the Windsors. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Roseanna]

8 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

You were critical of the length of Harry's grieving process. IMO, that's very different that the other examples that you have provided. I also would not associate the use of the word "follies" with grief over the loss of a parent.

With Harry's folly I didn't mean Harry's grief for losing a parent but his belief that by "stepping down" he can better shield his wife to be by harrassed by the media when Diana's fate showed that the media will then do it much more. 

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

With Harry's folly I didn't mean Harry's grief for losing a parent but his belief that by "stepping down" he can better shield his wife to be by harrassed by the media when Diana's fate showed that the media will then do it much more. 

As private citizens they will have more rights, though that may be a tricky area legally.  As members of the Royal Family, they are fair game.

We probably have a few lawyers here.  I'd be interested to hear them chime in on that.

Either way, Vancouver is beautiful, and the people are kind, at the very least, the notoriously hostile British press will have to travel to harass his son, wife, and self.

[Ellaria]

3 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

With Harry's folly I didn't mean Harry's grief for losing a parent but his belief that by "stepping down" he can better shield his wife to be by harrassed by the media when Diana's fate showed that the media will then do it much more. 

Perhaps he is naive to assume that he can ever get away from media scrutiny. Perhaps he believes that they stand a better chance of avoiding that scrutiny in Canada than in London. Only time will tell if they are correct.

I wish them well if they are sincere about wanting a different life and achieving financial independence. However, if they are looking for half-measures, then this step is bound to create further issues for them. 

The NY Post has been running a series of less than flattering articles for the last two days. Here is one of them: https://pagesix.com/2020/01/09/harry-and-meghan-will-be-punished-for-defying-queen-with-megxit/?_ga=2.78144084.1745501453.1577795916-152303367.1484348936

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, CountryGirl said:

To add insult to injury, they've received ZERO support from the senior members of the royal family, including Harry's own father and grandmother

I think Meggan did receive support, much more support than any other who has joined the royal family. The Queen invited her to spend Christmas in Sandringham when she was only engaged and after marriage she attended at least one public event with her. Charled walked her along the aisle instead of her father.   

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I caught Kier Simmon's reporting this morning on the Today Show.  In his report he mentioned that The Sun already had the scoop on this decision.  So, the Queen and Charles were well aware of Harry and Meghan's plans.  It does fit into what we know Charles wants to do when he is king.  There is a possibility that Charles fully supports his son and daughter-in-law.  

Someone leaked the story, and the Sussexes announced before the story hit which is well within their right.  Who leaked the story is the interesting question to me.  That is one way to stall this from happening.  I think Harry and Meghan called BP's bluff.  

It seems that Harry told the Queen and Charles about his plans, but the Queen wanted to discuss the matter only after he had talked with his father. And the Queen had forbidden Harry to make an announcement, so it was really a deliberately disobedience against the sovereign.     

[CountryGirl]

7 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I think Meggan did receive support, much more support than any other who has joined the royal family. The Queen invited her to spend Christmas in Sandringham when she was only engaged and after marriage she attended at least one public event with her. Charled walked her along the aisle instead of her father.   

An invite pre-marriage to Christmas and Charles walking her down a small stretch of aisle is hardly what I'd call "support," much less "much more support." 

[Ohiopirate02]

21 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

With Harry's folly I didn't mean Harry's grief for losing a parent but his belief that by "stepping down" he can better shield his wife to be by harrassed by the media when Diana's fate showed that the media will then do it much more. 

The media section on the Sussex's page is interesting.  Their main beef is with the outdated Royal Rota system.  From their webpage https://sussexroyal.com/media/

Historically, the understanding with the Royal Rota expects that if Their Royal Highnesses were to release a photo that has never been seen, they would be expected to give the image to The Rota (of which four of the seven are UK tabloids) simultaneously or in advance of their own release. This formula enables these select publications to profit by publishing these images on their websites/front pages. Any breach in this understanding creates long term repercussions.

I read this as Harry and Meghan don't want publications profiting from the release of official pictures especially the tabloids.  I can see the logic behind this.  Why should Harry and Meghan be forced to release pictures of Archie to the Daily Mail because it is their turn on the Rota?  They are currently suing them for libel.  The system makes no sense.

[Arynm]

5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I read this as Harry and Meghan don't want publications profiting from the release of official pictures especially the tabloids.  I can see the logic behind this.  Why should Harry and Meghan be forced to release pictures of Archie to the Daily Mail because it is their turn on the Rota?  They are currently suing them for libel.  The system makes no sense.

I find this "system" absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone continue to agree to this? The British freedom of the press is much different from the US so maybe this is the way the Royal's can keep the press from publishing unflattering things. At any case, this has to go. As far as The Sussexs are concerned, I feel like she has separated him from his entire family and I don't know if she has clean motives for doing it. I hope that they are happy and can get some peace but I can't help but feel like Harry is being lead a bit and might come to regret what he is doing now. It all seems a bit sudden, they haven't even been married 2 years.

[Umbelina]

 

25 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I think Meggan did receive support, much more support than any other who has joined the royal family. The Queen invited her to spend Christmas in Sandringham when she was only engaged and after marriage she attended at least one public event with her. Charled walked her along the aisle instead of her father.   

It seems that Harry told the Queen and Charles about his plans, but the Queen wanted to discuss the matter only after he had talked with his father. And the Queen had forbidden Harry to make an announcement, so it was really a deliberately disobedience against the sovereign.     

SO WHAT?

Who cares about "the sovereign" and there is no way the Buckingham Palace machine would have even considered allowing him to do this.  They know the monarchy and their jobs are hanging by a thread here after the Queen dies.

 

Two flagrantly adulterous selfish weirdos as the new King and Queen (and him head of the church!)  "I wish I was your tampon." ??

Also, the Crown can't protect Megan, and he knows it, as a royal he is fair game and so is she.  Did they try?  Maybe, but when it came to "William or Harry" their choices were obvious, and understandable.

Come on now, it's over once she dies, or soon after.  I know many think it isn't, and they may be right, but I think it is, and what's more, I think "Buckingham Palace" knows it, and will do anything and everything possible to avoid it, including propping up William at the expense of Harry.

William is really their only hope, probably the only sure thing around to keep the machine going.  Charles should watch his back.

14 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The media section on the Sussex's page is interesting.  Their main beef is with the outdated Royal Rota system.  From their webpage https://sussexroyal.com/media/

Historically, the understanding with the Royal Rota expects that if Their Royal Highnesses were to release a photo that has never been seen, they would be expected to give the image to The Rota (of which four of the seven are UK tabloids) simultaneously or in advance of their own release. This formula enables these select publications to profit by publishing these images on their websites/front pages. Any breach in this understanding creates long term repercussions.

I read this as Harry and Meghan don't want publications profiting from the release of official pictures especially the tabloids.  I can see the logic behind this.  Why should Harry and Meghan be forced to release pictures of Archie to the Daily Mail because it is their turn on the Rota?  They are currently suing them for libel.  The system makes no sense.

I agree, especially that last sentence.  The system as a whole makes very little sense, both press, and the monarchy.

After thinking about this, I think ultimately Harry wants to give up the HRH title, but that was a step too far to release with that statement, in advance of The Sun publishing all of this anyway.

Honestly, I think he is looking for many things here:

1. Protecting his son from the kind of life Harry has endured.
2. Freedom to choose where he puts his time and effort.
3. Happiness and really doing something with his life, as he did when he served twice in the Gulf, as he's trying to do with his charitable foundation.
4. Protecting his wife from the rabid, lying, relentless, racist, and horrid press, which is probably only possible as a "private citizen."  Which is why I think the next step is getting rid of their HRH's.
5. Spending his time as he wishes, not giving pre written speeches at endless minor events, or cutting ribbons, or only being "the face" of something.
6. Allowing his wife to lead whatever life she chooses as well, rather than holding her to the same old crap he's lived his life doing.
7. A better future for his son, growing up not only at least slightly more protected from the press, but also, as someone who probably will never have to be a "royal" from the endless day to day nonsense of the court.
8. Independence from criticism about "taking money from the people" for whatever choices he decides to make.  He doesn't want to be accountable to that, and frankly, I think he find the whole thing embarrassing when the Royal Family is unbelievable rich already.

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Umbelina
added stuff

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I wish them well if they are sincere about wanting a different life and achieving financial independence. However, if they are looking for half-measures, then this step is bound to create further issues for them. 

I agree in this. They have got 5 % of their income from "Sovereign's List" whereas 95 % has come from Charles's duchy of Cornwall. If they give up only the former but continue to receive the latter, it's not financial independence but exactly the opposite. 

So far their media strategy has been exactly half-measured. Sometimes they sued papers, sometimes they published the photo of their son whose privacy they have said they want to shield. And on the top of it they made an inrerview where they admitted that the rumours about the split between the brothers had been right which can only add the media publish more rumours.    

Edited January 10, 2020 by Roseanna
correcting numbers: 9 % > 5 %

[Ellaria]

15 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I hope that they are happy and can get some peace but I can't help but feel like Harry is being lead a bit and might come to regret what he is doing now. It all seems a bit sudden, they haven't even been married 2 years.

Agree! I believe that Harry is genuine in wanting a different life for his family. However, I wonder if he has thought thru the ramifications of taking this step. Perhaps he has and understands that there may not be an opportunity to turn back if things don't go as planned. And perhaps he has not.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Umbelina]

8 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I find this "system" absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone continue to agree to this? The British freedom of the press is much different from the US so maybe this is the way the Royal's can keep the press from publishing unflattering things. At any case, this has to go. As far as The Sussexs are concerned, I feel like she has separated him from his entire family and I don't know if she has clean motives for doing it. I hope that they are happy and can get some peace but I can't help but feel like Harry is being lead a bit and might come to regret what he is doing now. It all seems a bit sudden, they haven't even been married 2 years.

He chose her for a reason.  

He's probably wanted out of this nightmare since he was a tiny child, more and more as he continued through life.

He could have married any number of women who would tow the Machine's line, and be thrilled with a crown, the young elite that never had a job, or opinions contrary to those the mustaches wanted them to have.

He didn't.  He chose her.  It's not a leap to assume he chose her because, they shared opinions and goals, and even more, because she was not a part of the tired old monarchy set.

As expected though, many will blame her for this, rather than credit Harry for having opinions of his own, even though he has demonstrated his desire, and talked about his distaste of "the royal life" many, many times as an adult, and long before he even met Megan.  Before that, criticism was about her just wanting to be a princess and using Harry for that.  Megan can't win.

Personally, I think, and oddly I posted this weeks ago here, that Harry would be quite happy if the monarchy ended.   Now, I think he is ending it at least for himself, and this is the first step.

[Roseanna]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Two flagrantly adulterous selfish weirdos as the new King and Queen (and him head of the church!)  "I wish I was your tampon." ??

Whatever one thinks about the former relationship of Charles and Camilla, shouldn't also they have right to privacy (after all, most of us all have said as silly things in private). 

In any case, they are no more an adulterous couple since they made a confession in the church and got blessing for their marriage.   

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Whatever one thinks about the former relationship of Charles and Camilla, shouldn't also they have right to privacy (after all, most of us all have said as silly things in private). 

In any case, they are no more an adulterous couple since they made a confession in the church and got blessing for their marriage.   

No.  A King and Queen, and all the other royals living on the public dole do not have any rights to privacy.  That's one of the reasons Harry is taking this step.

It's quite different as Charles is also to be "head of the church."

What a randy bunch of royals the Windsors have been.  😉

Anyway, their "affair" might not have been any worse than the Kings and Queens from the distant past, EXCEPT, their telephone calls, were released and everyone heard for themselves just what the future King was really like.  Details of their sexual escapades are part of the public record, everyone knows.  He lost his own, and I think, the crown's dignity, and for what?  His dick.

He's also known as a well meaning wimpy nut case, completely tone deaf to the needs of everyday people.  

Now he's being painted by THE CROWN as some unloved, caring, victim of his mother, denied true love, and furthermore, the same writer produced THE QUEEN which showed them all as selfish overly fussy and out of touch.  Now he seems to be disparaging Elizabeth to pump up Charles' image.  It was also near the beginning of denigrating Diana (again, some more) which started the "it's all Diana's fault" trend.  Must protect the "machine" of monarchy after all, and since we are all stuck with Charles or out of a job?  Start the bad press!

Will the UK keep the monarchy?  Stay tuned.  They would have a much better chance at doing that with William than with Charles.  

As I said, Charles should watch his back.

5 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Agree! I believe that Harry is genuine in wanting a different life for his family. However, I wonder if he has thought thru the ramifications of taking this step. Perhaps he has and understands that there may not be an opportunity to turn back if things don't go as planned. And perhaps he has not.

Well, we are all guessing here, but from things Harry has said throughout his life?  I think he's probably been thinking about this, and about possible ways to do this for most of his life.  At each stage, in more sophisticated ways.  

It's interesting the deja vu Harry could be feeling here.

People defending Charles' behavior with the "well, it was all really Diana's fault."  Now people saying, and by people, I mean in comments everywhere, and in the press, not anyone specific on PTV, "well, it's all Megan's fault" Harry is doing this now.

What a life.  I hope he frees himself from it, and that Archie's life is better for it.  Harry will never be completely free from the negative press about both himself and his wife.  By doing this now though?  His son may be, or at the very least, will have a shot at it.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Umbelina

[Ellaria]

18 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Well, we are all guessing here, but from things Harry has said throughout his life?  I think he's probably been thinking about this, and about possible ways to do this for most of his life.  At each stage, in more sophisticated ways.  

It's interesting the deja vu Harry could be feeling here.

Well said! And as you pointed out above, "he chose HER." I hope you are correct and that this will turn out to be a well-thoughtout step back/aside. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Meredith Quill]

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Will the UK keep the monarchy?  Stay tuned.  They would have a much better chance at doing that with William than with Charles.  

As I said, Charles should watch his back.

Lol. I'm no pro-royalist but of course we will. By far, the vast majority of this country is very, very pro-royal family, much as it peeves me to admit it. (I particularly view Charles & Camilla with disdain but most seem to have accepted them ^shrug^).

There seems to be some miscommunication about exactly what the whole issue is here. The issue isn't whether the Sussex's had discussed planning to leave with the other senior royals - they had/are - the kerfuffle is because they were/are still ironing out the details of what that will look like and the Queen had specifically said not to announce anything until it was finalised. They went behind the other royals backs and announced it without warning before everything has been settled.

As I said, I'm no royalist and care little to none for any of it - just pointing out what the actual issue is.

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, SilverStormm said:

Lol. I'm no pro-royalist but of course we will. By far, the vast majority of this country is very, very pro-royal family, much as it peeves me to admit it. (I particularly view Charles & Camilla with disdain but most seem to have accepted them ^shrug^).

There seems to be some miscommunication about exactly what the whole issue is here. The issue isn't whether the Sussex's had discussed planning to leave with the other senior royals - they had/are - the kerfuffle is because they were/are still ironing out the details of what that will look like and the Queen had specifically said not to announce anything until it was finalised. They went behind the other royals backs and announced it without warning before everything has been settled.

As I said, I'm no royalist and care little to none for any of it - just pointing out what the actual issue is.

How does that fit with the news that The Sun was about to break the story today anyway though?

When Elizabeth took over, it was still an empire.  It's dwindled away bit by bit.

While England may accept Charles and Camilla as their new King and Queen, will Wales?  Will Ireland?  Will Canada?  Will Australia?  Will New Zealand, the various minor islands?  Does anyone really need a King anymore?

[Meredith Quill]

24 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

How does that fit with the news that The Sun was about to break the story today anyway though?

When Elizabeth took over, it was still an empire.  It's dwindled away bit by bit.

While England may accept Charles and Camilla as their new King and Queen, will Wales?  Will Ireland?  Will Canada?  Will Australia?  Will New Zealand, the various minor islands?  Does anyone really need a King anymore?

I advise anyone to believe Buck Palace over the British trash tabloids. Knowing how things are usually handled with this stuff; there's not a chance this was because a tabloid was going to report it first. Even if that were true, Buck Palace would've cobbled together a last minute joint announcement; it definitely wouldn't have been left for the Sussex's to do alone. That rumour smacks of zero logic and certainly the Queen et al wouldn't be 'upset' if that were the case.

As for the rest, yes, believe me, understanding what a monarchy brings to the table goes far deeper than what you see on the surface. It isn't simply pageantry and pomp, the monarch and extended royal family provide much more than being pretty ornaments (loathe as I am to confess it). The Commonwealth countries are very zealous in their love of their royal family, again I don't get it myself but there you have it. 

This country 'needs' a monarch because it's part of our constitution; the British monarchy is a constitutional monarchy that has certain powers of its own, which can affect parliament if the monarch decides to invoke them. I'm not sure what the monarch's powers are (if any) when it comes to the Commonwealth countries though but they do love them a state dinner, heh.

ETA: Apparently, The Sun had published a story on this the day before and framed it as 'speculation'. Which confirms the rumour that they did it to beat the papers is incorrect.

Edited January 9, 2020 by SilverStormm
Added more info.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, SilverStormm said:

 

ETA: Apparently, The Sun had published a story on this the day before and framed it as 'speculation'. Which confirms the rumour that they did it to beat the papers is incorrect.

Or, they did it to get ahead of the speculation by getting some facts out there.  

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, SilverStormm said:

ETA: Apparently, The Sun had published a story on this the day before and framed it as 'speculation'. Which confirms the rumour that they did it to beat the papers is incorrect.

Or The Sun got more details, and was going beyond "speculation" today.  Interesting though.

Honestly, "talking" to the Palace was going to be pointless anyway. 

ETA

At the very least, all of this is far more interesting that season 3 of The Crown!

Edited January 9, 2020 by Umbelina

[Meredith Quill]

20 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Or, they did it to get ahead of the speculation by getting some facts out there.  

Even if that is true, they still did it without consulting the Queen et al first, which went against what they'd been told. That's what the hoo-ha is all about.

16 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Or The Sun got more details, and was going beyond "speculation" today.  Interesting though.

Again, I refer to Buck Palace/joint annc vs a solo one.

16 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Honestly, "talking" to the Palace was going to be pointless anyway. 

That's your opinion of course and you're entitled to it.

Whatever the reasoning/excuses, it went against protocol and has left the Queen upset, which is what people are unhappy about in this particular instance. The wider ramifications of the Sussex's decision and their reasons for it; I make no argument either way regarding the entire thing, frankly I couldn't care less about any of the royals on a personal level. At best I have a grudging respect for the role the Queen's performed over the decades, although I haven't always agreed with all decisions.

[Ame]

They wanted to leave but with a specific goal in mind and released the statement to force the BRF to give into their demands. I find their behaviour very offensive. How can they “fully support HMQ” & “honour our duty to the Queen” when they didn’t even deign to tell her they were doing this...? How can they be “financially independent” whilst still accepting huge 💰from the Duchy of Cornwall, set up to support heirs to the British throne? It wouldn’t hurt them if they waited a month/weeks to finalize plans that can accommodate their wishes while be supported by the BRF, this looks like a pre-emptive strike - setting out their stall to gain public support in advance. 

I feel like a lot of people are rewriting Harry‘s history here... He is also the same guy who once wore a Nazi uniform as a joke, compared firing missiles to a video game & used racial slurs to describe a fellow soldier. So maybe he’s not just that good at seeing consequences of his actions?

I am also confused about the insistence that racist press coverage had anything to do with M&H's decision or, more importantly, bad coverage will be reduced due to their decision. If anyone thinks this is a winning move to "get one over on mainstream press" they are hopelessly naïve.

Also I think Camilla has been more hated, more vilified more bullied than H&M. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Ame

[Roseanna]

On 1/9/2020 at 3:38 PM, Umbelina said:

He chose her for a reason.  

He's probably wanted out of this nightmare since he was a tiny child, more and more as he continued through life.

He could have married any number of women who would tow the Machine's line, and be thrilled with a crown, the young elite that never had a job, or opinions contrary to those the mustaches wanted them to have.

He didn't.  He chose her.  It's not a leap to assume he chose her because, they shared opinions and goals, and even more, because she was not a part of the tired old monarchy set.

You may be right that Harry chose Maghan subconsiously in order to get "out" (just as David chose Wallis).

But I don't believe that he could have married anyone. Remember that Charles proposed a few women and only Diana acceoted. Very few sensible persons wants to marry to royalty unless they are so much in love that they want to give up their career and privacy (and to many even love isn't worth to make those sacrifices) - or are ambitious and narcistic.

On 1/9/2020 at 3:25 PM, Umbelina said:

really doing something with his life, as he did when he served twice in the Gulf, as he's trying to do with his charitable Foundation.

Harry has no particular skills nor profession. He is no artist or peace negatiotor like some ex-royals have been. He has only his celebrity based of his royal status. So charity is the only thing he can do and does it really succeed better without royal status?  

Or does he think that selling stuffs with the label "Sussex royal" is meaningful life?  

On 1/9/2020 at 3:37 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

Agree! I believe that Harry is genuine in wanting a different life for his family. However, I wonder if he has thought thru the ramifications of taking this step. Perhaps he has and understands that there may not be an opportunity to turn back if things don't go as planned. And perhaps he has not.

It's that which I very much doubt. He has no real experience about "normal life" and probably sees it in rosy colors. But whatever good it may bring, it will certainly bring also problems. How does he behave then - is he an adult enough to accept that he can't have all good things at the same time?

19 hours ago, Ame said:

Also I think Camilla has been more hated, more vilified more bullied than H&M. 

That's true: she was practically shut in her house. And she was a private person, without any security officials or PR people. 

But she survived, probably due to her mental health born of her happy childhood and support of her family.

[Crs97]

If I am reading the timeline right, then I missed how the BRF did the Sussexes wrong and forced their hand.  If I understand correctly:  Harry told Charles in November/December (?), Charles said to make a plan, Harry sent him a plan, Charles said plan still needs work, Harry called Queen, she says we will talk after you talk with your father, assistants say Charles can’t meet right away, H&M announce.  Am I missing something?  I don’t get a Big Bad Mean Royal Family vibe from this.

[Ohiopirate02]

Just now, Crs97 said:

If I am reading the timeline right, then I missed how the BRF did the Sussexes wrong and forced their hand.  If I understand correctly:  Harry told Charles in November/December (?), Charles said to make a plan, Harry sent him a plan, Charles said plan still needs work, Harry called Queen, she says we will talk after you talk with your father, assistants say Charles can’t meet right away, H&M announce.  Am I missing something?  I don’t get a Big Bad Mean Royal Family vibe from this.

Someone leaked the story to The Sun, so Harry and Meghan announced to get ahead of the story and try to control the narrative.  Who's camp leaked the story is anyone's guess--Her Majesty, Charles, the Cambridges, or Harry and Meghan.  

[CountryGirl]

10 hours ago, Ame said:

Also I think Camilla has been more hated, more vilified more bullied than H&M. 

When you can find an instance of Camilla being bullied for the color of her skin, then you can say that she was more hated or villified or bullied than Meghan. 

Her initial treatment was a drop in the ocean compared to what Meghan's been through and let's not get it twisted. Camilla was ostracized because she was Charles' mistress and given my stance that "Cheaters Suck," I don't give two figs about that. And clearly, she has come out the winner of "The Other Woman" sweepstakes, having snagged her tampon-loving man in the end and becoming a Duchess to boot. So I wouldn't shed a single tear for the woman who is living her best life, no matter the pain she caused in getting there. 

Meghan has done nothing to deserve the vile treatment she's received, but then again, her being the wrong color is enough for many. 

[andromeda331]

I think most of us wish that particular remark about the tampon to have stayed private. That's not something you ever want to hear.

It does seem like the BRF more annoyed that it was leaked before they had all the details worked out which makes sense. If the Queen's upset that he's leaving the business well its not surprising. She's been doing it for decades and didn't have that option. Her parents didn't want to do it either but up and did their duty. So if she's having trouble with it. Its not surprising. Maybe she is and maybe she isn't. He's the spare in a few decades he will probably be doing less anyways when all three of William's children are adults. As much as it would be nice to see little Archie and any sibling doing a lot of royalty duties he has the reality is eventually he's not going to have much to do. Its just the way it goes when your the sibling to the king or future king. Better Harry and Meghan start their son out knowing that and doing all they can to make sure he does something else then not prepare him for that and we've seen how well that's turned out for many royals.  Anne was smart by turning down titles and making sure her kids found something to do. Beatrice and Eugenie would have been better off if their parents had done that. 

Also, some of us do care about the Swedish royals! They certainly seem so much more relaxed then the British Royals and have less crazy rules. Plus they ditched the male heir rule way back in the 70s. Madeleine was pregnant at her wedding. No one cared. Or Norway where the heir married a woman who had a kid! And it wasn't the end of the world. 

But the most annoying thing about all of the uproar is once again where its being directed. Harry and Meghan want to be part-time royals and not at Prince Andrew who most definitely slept with underaged girls. If the monarchy ends or being ruined it should be because of Andrew and their protecting him. That should be what brings them down. They are protecting a known pedophile and now people know it. Not Harry and Meghan deciding to become part time royals. 

[CountryGirl]

Spot-on article.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/entertainment/meghan-markle-blame-all-sides-race-trnd/index.html

[Umbelina]

An article with multiple links to other articles, and neither a completely negative, nor positive take on the Harry and Megan news.  It goes on to cover surrounding stories, Andrew for example...thought it might be interesting for some.

How Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Are Achieving Princess Diana’s Unfulfilled Dream

The title sounds as if this will be a puff piece praising them, but it's certainly not.  It doesn't address the continuation of the Monarchy in any way, by the way.

Quote

For the past several months, the House of Windsor has been roiled by so many scandalous plot points that one wonders if its members were worried that the popular television show The Crown was outdoing them in drama. Well, watch this!

 

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Also, some of us do care about the Swedish royals! They certainly seem so much more relaxed then the British Royals and have less crazy rules. Plus they ditched the male heir rule way back in the 70s. Madeleine was pregnant at her wedding. No one cared. Or Norway where the heir married a woman who had a kid! And it wasn't the end of the world. 

Madeleine's was married on 8th June 2013 and her first child was born on 20th February 2014, so if she had become pregant just before the wedding, even she herself didn't know it yet. Nor can any other know the truth, as a child quite often comes a week or two earlier or later than expected.

Generally, the Scandinavian royal houses have managed with marriages even with foreigners who have to learn the language (Queen Silvia of Sweden and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark) or with commoners whose abilities were doubted (Crown Princess Victoria's husband Daniel) or had "doubtful" past (Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway).

And yes, they really show their feelings and the TV shows much more about the weddings than in Britain. Especially Daniel's speech to Victoria is legendary.     

[Ellaria]

The New York Post - basically a US tabloid - is dedicating a lot of space to H&M. Much of it is negative.

"Why Harry and Meghan Will Find Life Even Harder as Non Royals"

"Meghan Markel's Friends Dump on the Duchess"

"Queen Orders a Megxit Deal Within 72 Hours"

"Britons Want Harry and Meghan Stripped of Royal Titles"

Regardless of how one may feel about their decision, H&M may not escape critical press in the US, at least initially.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[dubbel zout]

They're not going to escape critical press anywhere.

[andromeda331]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Madeleine's was married on 8th June 2013 and her first child was born on 20th February 2014, so if she had become pregant just before the wedding, even she herself didn't know it yet. Nor can any other know the truth, as a child quite often comes a week or two earlier or later than expected.

Generally, the Scandinavian royal houses have managed with marriages even with foreigners who have to learn the language (Queen Silvia of Sweden and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark) or with commoners whose abilities were doubted (Crown Princess Victoria's husband Daniel) or had "doubtful" past (Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway).

And yes, they really show their feelings and the TV shows much more about the weddings than in Britain. Especially Daniel's speech to Victoria is legendary.     

Yeah, they've managed. It wasn't the end of the world.  

YouTube has tons of clips and videos on them. Their weddings and Christenings. The Swedish Christenings are interesting one or the other parent is usually holding the baby rather then a nanny or off stage, and for the Christening of their second child the first is almost always there two at one or two years old wandering around and no one really seems annoyed by it.  

I also really like the Netherlands King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima they go to all the Olympics and really get into cheering on the Dutch.

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

The New York Post - basically a US tabloid - is dedicating a lot of space to H&M. Much of it is negative.

"Why Harry and Meghan Will Find Life Even Harder as Non Royals"

"Meghan Markel's Friends Dump on the Duchess"

"Queen Orders a Megxit Deal Within 72 Hours"

"Britons Want Harry and Meghan Stripped of Royal Titles"

Regardless of how one may feel about their decision, H&M may not escape critical press in the US, at least initially.

Same owner of much of the British press, Rupert Murdoch.

Also, the USA is getting a bigger dose from that pig right now, but it's nearly every day in the UK isn't it?  Megan (formerly Diana) the ruiner of everything!

 

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

They're not going to escape critical press anywhere.

Certainly not now, and I don't think they are idiotic to have not realized that when this happened things would get worse before they someday get better, after all, they are functioning adults.  I think this is just the first step for them, and even more, for Archie, and that if they are no longer accepting money from UK citizens, they can feel at least a bit of freedom from having their every expense criticized.

God, what a horrid fishbowl that is, I can't imagine living that way.  The perks are amazing, but not if you are miserable, and under attack daily, watched every time you step outside...

I have several friends on the island of Vancouver, they told me that when the Sussexes came, there was almost no press hounding them, and they were pretty much treated normally by the people there, allowed to enjoy the peace and beauty there.  They loved it.

If/when the monarchy dies (as I think it will when they face the prospect of Charles as King) now it will ALL be blamed on Megan, rather than all of the rest of it.  Andrew, Charles, "Queen" Camilla, money, and that it's outlived time because of a remarkable and long lived Queen.  Megan that black American who seduced Harry away from his family and duty, that Machiavellian witch!

They will come up with even more inflammatory headlines though, Murdoch made his fortune on that.

ETA

About the whole bodyguard thing?  I DO think the British government should have to pay for their security.  Why?  It's quite simple, it's not to protect THEM, it's to protect the crown from duress, blackmail, etc. should they be taken hostage.  If they are going to keep having a "crown" then they should protect her/him from things like that.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Umbelina

[PeterPirate]

Maybe Harry can be invested as the Prince of Canada.  

The hat the Queen wore at Charles' investiture can double as a hockey helmet.

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

The New York Post - basically a US tabloid - is dedicating a lot of space to H&M. Much of it is negative.

"Why Harry and Meghan Will Find Life Even Harder as Non Royals"

"Meghan Markel's Friends Dump on the Duchess"

"Queen Orders a Megxit Deal Within 72 Hours"

"Britons Want Harry and Meghan Stripped of Royal Titles"

Regardless of how one may feel about their decision, H&M may not escape critical press in the US, at least initially.

I just took a look at those.  I don't recommend it, it made me feel filthy for even looking.

My God, how nasty and contrived they are.  Rupert Murdoch is an asshole.

[Umbelina]

The Queen Has Summoned Harry, Charles, and William for a Royal Family Showdown

Quote

 

The Queen has summoned Prince Harry, Prince Charles, and Prince William to Sandringham for a family showdown on Monday, palace sources have revealed.

Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex is expected to dial in on the call “time zones permitting to talk things through,” and a number of senior aides and courtiers will also be present. However, neither Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge nor Prince Philip, who has retired from public life and was ill over the Christmas period, will be present.

It will be the first time Harry has seen his grandmother since his and Meghan’s bombshell announcement that they are stepping down as senior royals and plan to spend more time in North America. According to an aide the meeting has been called in the hope that the family can work out the next steps and resolve some of outstanding issues, specifically how the couple plan to be financially independent.

 

Quote

Meghan is now in Canada, where she has been reunited with Archie, and it has been reported that the couple have already flown their dogs to the country suggesting that this is to be a long term move.

hmmmm

[AZChristian]

According to a source, "As we have said previously, making a change to the working life and role of the monarchy for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex requires complex and thoughtful discussions."

Here's what the queen's response should be. "You want to tell US what YOUR chosen role in the monarchy is? How's this: You get to leave 'the family business' and become Mr. and Mrs. Windsor. You can live wherever you want. You'll live on your own inheritance (from Diana) and whatever else you can make without cashing in on your former role as royals. No more money from the Duchy of Cornwall or the British taxpayers.

Please leave the keys to Frogmore on the kitchen counter as you exit with the moving vans which will take YOUR possessions.

Good luck, and God bless."

Sincerely,
Her Royal Highness Elizabeth II
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Everyone Else in Line Ahead of Harry
The Rest of the World

[Razzberry]

🙌   LOVE this news.  It should be entertaining to see how they  plan to manage the press outside the umbrella of royal protection.   I don't really follow their press too closely so missed these attacks, racial slurs, and whatever else they're complaining about, but I'm afraid they ain't seen nothin' yet. 

Seems to me they love the perks of royalty but don't want to do the work.   They're financially dependent on the crown, but want to make their own rules.  It's David and Wallis all over again.

[ProudMary]

The deal was supposedly made before the Sussexes made their announcement. 

Meghan Markle Signs Voiceover Deal With Disney

It's a charity deal to benefit Elephants Without Borders. Details on the project itself are as of yet unspecified.