With Love, Meghan on Netflix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why Charles isn’t speaking to Harry? What’s the “security stuff”? Sorry I’m behind on my royal gossip lol

Harry argued he should have armed protection in the UK and won't bring the kids back without it. The issue is nobody in the UK, no matter how powerful, has armed protection unless they are a select few (Some working royals, ministers, foreign visiting dignitaries) because it is provided by London Metro Police Protection Command unit only for these few approved people and under some circumstances. Princess Anne for instance only receives this protection when carrying out official duties. Harry thinks King Charles should have intervened to get him this protection, but it's not something he is in charge of.

As for Charles not speaking to Harry, I think the way Harry ran to the BBC to complain about Charles today makes it pretty clear why. Harry is a liability and cannot be trusted since he basically lied today and said Charles could have granted him something that's just not granted by Charles. He can't expect his family to want to talk to him when he keeps trying to make them look bad.

Thank you for the summary! Ugh, Harry is so entitled. Why can’t he just pay for security. Has he transitioned from royal to celebrity? Celebrities pay for their own security. These people are exhausting.

He has offered to pay for it but really wants armed guards and that is the issue. He cannot pay London Metro Police so that just is not possible.

Private security?

No, because he wants armed guards. Only London Metro Police can be armed while providing security. It's a catch 22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why Charles isn’t speaking to Harry? What’s the “security stuff”? Sorry I’m behind on my royal gossip lol

Okay I'm going to try to be as accurate as possible because it's all a bit confusing...

1) When Harry was a "working Royal," him and his family were given full-time police protection - this is security provided by the State. Right now Charles and Camilla and William and his family have "full time" police protection paid for by the State. Other working royals receive state-funded protection only during royal engagements.

2) When Harry left to move to California and no longer work for the Royal Family, he lost his full time police protection. RAVEC - the government agency that decides these matters - decided to provide him with security on a case-by-case basis. Harry would have to submit his travel plans 28 days in advance and the government entity would decide the level of security he would be given during his visit.

3) *Note that in the Oprah interview, Harry and Meghan said that the Royal Family was trying to take away or never provide Archie with security. I believe that what Meghan was trying to say was that there was some talk that Archie would not be given the title he "deserves" because they didn't want to pay for his security. They very overtly tried to link that to racism. Note here that titles have nothing to do with the type of security Royals get - "blood Princesses" - including Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice and their father Prince Andrew, do not receive tax funded security. The title conversation is a whole different thing.

4) Harry tried to appeal the ruling that RAVEC would decide Harry's security on a case by case basis. Well - not technically the ruling itself, he wanted them to have to go through the decision process again. Today's decision found that RAVEC's approach was reasonable and based on a valid risk-assessment model.

5) Harry has now gone a bit unhinged and through an interview and statement is trying to at once say that he wants to reconcile with his family and doesn't want to fight anymore but also seems to pretty much blame them for the decision. Previous statements of his have intimated that King Charles could easily have influence RAVEC's decision and provide Harry with security while in today's interview, Harry says that Charles should have stepped aside and let them do their job. There is no evidence that Charles has influenced the decision in any way and in fact, during the initial review process, Queen Elizabeth tried to influence RAVEC to provide Harry and his family with security and they did not take that under advisement.

6) I personally believe that this whole thing is a way that Harry is trying to get IPP (International Protected Persons) status - with 24/7 tax-payer funded security wherever they go (so they can continue to do the tours to other countries like they have been doing these last few years) and not have to pay for their own security. Note that as of now, Harry pays for his own security in the US and State provided security in the UK is decided on a case by case basis. His argument is that his own security that he pays for is not enough - that they don't have access to the same information that the security provided by the State would have and are unable to carry weapons in the UK.

7) It's unclear why Harry says he can never bring his wife and kids to the UK. He is still able to submit his travel plans to the government before he plans to visit the UK, and they will provide him with security if they feel the risk at that time deserves it.

8) It's also unclear who he is trying to blame here. You can read his statement to try to figure that out for yourself.

Charles is maybe not speaking to him because of this but also Harry and Meghan have publicly written books, done interviews, released a TV series, and more to publicly talk about a ton of private details about the family and shame them by intimating that they are racists who pretty much want them both dead. Again, up to you if you feel this is true or a valid reason for them to cut him out. Note also that the reason I am so interested in this stuff is because the spin from both sides is honestly fascinating so I simply had to try to figure this out for myself. I think it's because people think of Princess Diana as practically a Saint and that has really now tilted towards her sons, but specifically Harry who so many remember as the little boy walking behind is mother's coffin and has really publicly posited himself as her successor (and his wife as almost her reincarnation). It affords him a lot of PR in the public and it's been an interesting exercise for me to separate the fact from the spin. I'm sure I still have some stuff wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why Charles isn’t speaking to Harry? What’s the “security stuff”? Sorry I’m behind on my royal gossip lol

Harry argued he should have armed protection in the UK and won't bring the kids back without it. The issue is nobody in the UK, no matter how powerful, has armed protection unless they are a select few (Some working royals, ministers, foreign visiting dignitaries) because it is provided by London Metro Police Protection Command unit only for these few approved people and under some circumstances. Princess Anne for instance only receives this protection when carrying out official duties. Harry thinks King Charles should have intervened to get him this protection, but it's not something he is in charge of.

As for Charles not speaking to Harry, I think the way Harry ran to the BBC to complain about Charles today makes it pretty clear why. Harry is a liability and cannot be trusted since he basically lied today and said Charles could have granted him something that's just not granted by Charles. He can't expect his family to want to talk to him when he keeps trying to make them look bad.

Thank you for the summary! Ugh, Harry is so entitled. Why can’t he just pay for security. Has he transitioned from royal to celebrity? Celebrities pay for their own security. These people are exhausting.

He has offered to pay for it but really wants armed guards and that is the issue. He cannot pay London Metro Police so that just is not possible.

Private security?

No, because he wants armed guards. Only London Metro Police can be armed while providing security. It's a catch 22.

Ah ok, well maybe I was a bit harsh. I just googled it and they offered him security on a case by case basis. That seems like a fair compromise…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why Charles isn’t speaking to Harry? What’s the “security stuff”? Sorry I’m behind on my royal gossip lol

Okay I'm going to try to be as accurate as possible because it's all a bit confusing...

1) When Harry was a "working Royal," him and his family were given full-time police protection - this is security provided by the State. Right now Charles and Camilla and William and his family have "full time" police protection paid for by the State. Other working royals receive state-funded protection only during royal engagements.

2) When Harry left to move to California and no longer work for the Royal Family, he lost his full time police protection. RAVEC - the government agency that decides these matters - decided to provide him with security on a case-by-case basis. Harry would have to submit his travel plans 28 days in advance and the government entity would decide the level of security he would be given during his visit.

3) *Note that in the Oprah interview, Harry and Meghan said that the Royal Family was trying to take away or never provide Archie with security. I believe that what Meghan was trying to say was that there was some talk that Archie would not be given the title he "deserves" because they didn't want to pay for his security. They very overtly tried to link that to racism. Note here that titles have nothing to do with the type of security Royals get - "blood Princesses" - including Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice and their father Prince Andrew, do not receive tax funded security. The title conversation is a whole different thing.

4) Harry tried to appeal the ruling that RAVEC would decide Harry's security on a case by case basis. Well - not technically the ruling itself, he wanted them to have to go through the decision process again. Today's decision found that RAVEC's approach was reasonable and based on a valid risk-assessment model.

5) Harry has now gone a bit unhinged and through an interview and statement is trying to at once say that he wants to reconcile with his family and doesn't want to fight anymore but also seems to pretty much blame them for the decision. Previous statements of his have intimated that King Charles could easily have influence RAVEC's decision and provide Harry with security while in today's interview, Harry says that Charles should have stepped aside and let them do their job. There is no evidence that Charles has influenced the decision in any way and in fact, during the initial review process, Queen Elizabeth tried to influence RAVEC to provide Harry and his family with security and they did not take that under advisement.

6) I personally believe that this whole thing is a way that Harry is trying to get IPP (International Protected Persons) status - with 24/7 tax-payer funded security wherever they go (so they can continue to do the tours to other countries like they have been doing these last few years) and not have to pay for their own security. Note that as of now, Harry pays for his own security in the US and State provided security in the UK is decided on a case by case basis. His argument is that his own security that he pays for is not enough - that they don't have access to the same information that the security provided by the State would have and are unable to carry weapons in the UK.

7) It's unclear why Harry says he can never bring his wife and kids to the UK. He is still able to submit his travel plans to the government before he plans to visit the UK, and they will provide him with security if they feel the risk at that time deserves it.

8) It's also unclear who he is trying to blame here. You can read his statement to try to figure that out for yourself.

Charles is maybe not speaking to him because of this but also Harry and Meghan have publicly written books, done interviews, released a TV series, and more to publicly talk about a ton of private details about the family and shame them by intimating that they are racists who pretty much want them both dead. Again, up to you if you feel this is true or a valid reason for them to cut him out. Note also that the reason I am so interested in this stuff is because the spin from both sides is honestly fascinating so I simply had to try to figure this out for myself. I think it's because people think of Princess Diana as practically a Saint and that has really now tilted towards her sons, but specifically Harry who so many remember as the little boy walking behind is mother's coffin and has really publicly posited himself as her successor (and his wife as almost her reincarnation). It affords him a lot of PR in the public and it's been an interesting exercise for me to separate the fact from the spin. I'm sure I still have some stuff wrong.

Wow this is all so crazy. I bought Harry’s book a few years ago but didn’t finish it because it was just so mean. The balding comment he made about William…Just very tacky…so I guess I’m already a little anti Harry but not deeply so (as I haven’t been paying close attention). It does feel like he’s the antagonist here.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain the statement he just came out with? I don’t understand its significance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After today's interview I think it's obvious that Harry only gers back if he leaves Meghan. The royal family want nothing to do with him as long as she's in tow.

The sad part is that if he had said nice things about his family after leaving and didn't do the Oprah interview people would have liked them so much more and respected just wanting to step away from the UK (awful place compared to CA, vicious press) and the royal duties (boring, can seem pointless, Meghan can't work as an actress). it was just not a gracious exit. Meghan could be the star of Suits LA right now and rise in popularity.

+1

The Oprah thing was a huge mistake for all of them. They have never recovered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the statement he just came out with? I don’t understand its significance.

What statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why Charles isn’t speaking to Harry? What’s the “security stuff”? Sorry I’m behind on my royal gossip lol[/quot

Charles is maybe not speaking to him because of this but also Harry and Meghan have publicly written books, done interviews, released a TV series, and more to publicly talk about a ton of private details about the family and shame them by intimating that they are racists who pretty much want them both dead. Again, up to you if you feel this is true or a valid reason for them to cut him out. Note also that the reason I am so interested in this stuff is because the spin from both sides is honestly fascinating so I simply had to try to figure this out for myself. I think it's because people think of Princess Diana as practically a Saint and that has really now tilted towards her sons, but specifically Harry who so many remember as the little boy walking behind is mother's coffin and has really publicly posited himself as her successor (and his wife as almost her reincarnation). It affords him a lot of PR in the public and it's been an interesting exercise for me to separate the fact from the spin. I'm sure I still have some stuff wrong.

Wow this is all so crazy. I bought Harry’s book a few years ago but didn’t finish it because it was just so mean. The balding comment he made about William…Just very tacky…so I guess I’m already a little anti Harry but not deeply so (as I haven’t been paying close attention). It does feel like he’s the antagonist here.

Harry is either delusional or being deliberately obtuse when he says that his father refuses to talk to him because of the security case. Maybe he wants it to seem like he has a noble cause for family security. He has not acknowledged any of the other behavior was hurtful to his father. I think he might actually feel bad because he can see what he has missed. Whatever the case is, the royals seem really sick of this, and have washed their hands of him. Charles has to make the most of his energy and probably cannot keep dealing with stress caused by Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the statement he just came out with? I don’t understand its significance.

What statement?

It is on their sussex website. It is unhinged and probably half written by Meghan. Doesn't really make sense. IMO they want an excuse to blame his family for not being able to visit or have a relationship with his kids, even though they will get security if they do. Also they could like, Facetime.

[Anonymous]

I can’t with the whole lot of them. The fact that there are people on both sides of this “stand up” for a literal King and Princes. They’re all gonna be fine or not regardless of the advocacy of the plebians.

[Anonymous]

There was a time when a statement like this by the Sussexes would have broken the Internet. Now there’s barely a shrug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the whole lot of them. The fact that there are people on both sides of this “stand up” for a literal King and Princes. They’re all gonna be fine or not regardless of the advocacy of the plebians.

True. But, it is fun to follow the story. They are so rich and still cannot get along.

Just read that Harry says he has "forgiven" them. Seems to me that he is the one that needs forgiving.

Once they accused the royal family of being racist, that was a step too far. They gave them a beautiful wedding. I think they would not have been supportive had they been racist.

[Anonymous]

I watched the interview, and it seems like this isn’t about security, per se. This is about seeking acceptance and love. He talked about “keeping us under the roof” and when they couldn’t do that, they revoked security measures. I think he just wants to feel loved and “protected” and security staff is the manifestation of that need.
It’s ridiculous that he is clinging to that.
Even more striking is the repeated “us” and “we” as though he is not a person in his own right, but chained to her. His children have a steep and ongoing loss, and he acknowledges that.
This marriage will die in bitterness and resentment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I am not a fan of Meghan but it occurred to me today that the reason she gets so much hate is because she appears out of touch and aloof and her mannerisms are rehearsed and fake. She also rehashes platitudes that are not relevant to or accessible to many ordinary people. However, she seems to ingratiate herself easily to other high status, rich people like Oprah Winfrey, Gwyneth Paltrow, Prince Harry, Justin Trudeu's circle of friends etc.

It is because...they relate to her and they understand her. She is not being fake...when you are so rich and privileged and sheltered...you really do spiral over not being asked if you are ok and do tend to think flower sprinkles bring joy. She is so effervescent because she is beautiful, in a happy marriage with a Prince, lives on a gorgeous estate and is rich! That isn't performative!

She has lived in the 1% since her Suits days and is now part of the world elite. Of course she is out of touch and unrelatable!

I don't think this is correct. If this was the reason all rich and beautiful celebrities would be hated. The reason people don't like her is because she reached the status of a working member of the royal family, and all she did was complain. Then she left the royal family and claimed to want privacy but has continued to claim royal ties and try to make American status of being a Duchess when we don't have royal titles iinfluences.

The problem with that is that no one cares about members of the royal family who are not actually in the institution. The magic is in how the work together and present themselves to the public on special occasions. They do not shill on Instagram and do interviews with influencers. That is low level social media influencer behavior unworthy of the royal family.

Well how come the other rich and famous people seem to like her and want to be her friend? If she was truly so terrible surely there would be others of her same class who would shun her.

This is inaccurate. She's been shunned by several notable people. She tried to get near Kevin Costner onstage at a benefit and he moved away from her. She was also left off the guest list for birthday parties of Obama and Bezos. Allegedly her PR firm was told to keep her occupied to prevent her from trying to crash the Bezos party. So they shipped her off to that dumpy film premier in the Dominican Republic or Haiti.

“Dominican Republic or Haiti” yikes. But you remembered all the other details about a thing that happened a year ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the whole lot of them. The fact that there are people on both sides of this “stand up” for a literal King and Princes. They’re all gonna be fine or not regardless of the advocacy of the plebians.

True. But, it is fun to follow the story. They are so rich and still cannot get along.

Just read that Harry says he has "forgiven" them. Seems to me that he is the one that needs forgiving.

Once they accused the royal family of being racist, that was a step too far. They gave them a beautiful wedding. I think they would not have been supportive had they been racist.

Not only that, Charles walked her down the aisle. He didn't have to do that.