Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why Harry, who hated the photographers stalking him and his mom, would want to distance his kids and wife from that mess, especially with racially motivated attacks
Especially when he can look at his uncles and see his fate there, relegated to obscurity after being 3rd and 2nd in line for the throne
Edward seems OK with his low-key life, but not Andrew...

His mom INVITED photographers just as often as she didn't.

She tried to control her narrative and the people around her. So what if she chose times where she could control it. The whole rest of her life was outside of her control.

[Anonymous]

The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that they’ve left the island, have their own private staff and paid back everything to do with the royal family it’s not as easy to use the Sussex’s to hide their own faults or laziness.

William + wife will have to do double the engagements he was before not only because Harry left but also because 3/4ths of the ‘Magnificent Seven’ are retirees and the U.K. is in freefall thanks to Brexit.

None of the royals have visited Australia or Canada in over two years as well. Too bad they pushed out the hardest working young royals.

+1

Pandemic ?

DP. Yes, there were no royal visits in 2020. Rightly so. And in 2019 H&M moved to Canada, rendering the country off limits to the other royals.

As for Australia and other countries? As an American Anglophile, I don't really know or care.

Wait what. H&M own entire countries now? Fascinating.

Not to mention that Harry and Meghan moved there in late 2019, so that doesn’t excuse the failure to visit earlier in the year.

Why do the British royals have to visit Australia or Canada? Those countries have functioning governments and societies. Isn’t it just a waste of taxpayer money? All people see are pictures of women in pretty dresses.

The British monarch is head of 15 or 16 Commonwealth realms (including the United Kingdom countries). Each of those countries or realms supports the royal family in some way - financially. There's a reason Elizabeth's on Canadian money, their government sends her $50 million a year to support her family's lifestyle.

So yes -- they have to visit. On average they send a senior royal/royal couple to the major nations every year - Australia, Canada, New Zealand get their own visits and the Caribbean nations get a visit as a collective.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay/
https://www.businessinsider.com/canadas-cost-to-support-the-royal-family-in-2015-2016-9

The second article you linked said that the Royal visits to Canada are very expensive for the host country. If you’re that concerned about expenses why do “they have to visit”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Stow the outrage. The Duchess of grifting is still living on a taxpayer-paid estate with her former husband while running multiple businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that they’ve left the island, have their own private staff and paid back everything to do with the royal family it’s not as easy to use the Sussex’s to hide their own faults or laziness.

William + wife will have to do double the engagements he was before not only because Harry left but also because 3/4ths of the ‘Magnificent Seven’ are retirees and the U.K. is in freefall thanks to Brexit.

None of the royals have visited Australia or Canada in over two years as well. Too bad they pushed out the hardest working young royals.

+1

Pandemic ?

DP. Yes, there were no royal visits in 2020. Rightly so. And in 2019 H&M moved to Canada, rendering the country off limits to the other royals.

As for Australia and other countries? As an American Anglophile, I don't really know or care.

Wait what. H&M own entire countries now? Fascinating.

Not to mention that Harry and Meghan moved there in late 2019, so that doesn’t excuse the failure to visit earlier in the year.

Why do the British royals have to visit Australia or Canada? Those countries have functioning governments and societies. Isn’t it just a waste of taxpayer money? All people see are pictures of women in pretty dresses.

The British monarch is head of 15 or 16 Commonwealth realms (including the United Kingdom countries). Each of those countries or realms supports the royal family in some way - financially. There's a reason Elizabeth's on Canadian money, their government sends her $50 million a year to support her family's lifestyle.

So yes -- they have to visit. On average they send a senior royal/royal couple to the major nations every year - Australia, Canada, New Zealand get their own visits and the Caribbean nations get a visit as a collective.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay/
https://www.businessinsider.com/canadas-cost-to-support-the-royal-family-in-2015-2016-9

The second article you linked said that the Royal visits to Canada are very expensive for the host country. If you’re that concerned about expenses why do “they have to visit”?

Because of they don't visit that money is going bye-bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

The difference is that it's exposure on their terms - I'm surprised PP doesn't see this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Uh, of course anyone and everyone can be of service. Many people are, and most people are not royals. But only royals can be Royal Patrons. They cannot be royals when they refuse to act like royals so they don't get to be Royal Patrons. Boo hoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Uh, of course anyone and everyone can be of service. Many people are, and most people are not royals. But only royals can be Royal Patrons. They cannot be royals when they refuse to act like royals so they don't get to be Royal Patrons. Boo hoo.

Of course they can't be Royal Patrons. I'm sure they didn't think they could. But the Queen's PUBLIC statement implied that they could not live lives of public service. Which is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Most of us posting are American (although there are a couple Brits on this thread). Going to Oprah is admission that they're unserious and in trouble. She doesn't have serious guests, she has interesting guests or public interest stories. I guess they feel like they fell down a well...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Most of us posting are American (although there are a couple Brits on this thread). Going to Oprah is admission that they're unserious and in trouble. She doesn't have serious guests, she has interesting guests or public interest stories. I guess they feel like they fell down a well...

Oprah doesn't have serious guests?

What?

Barack Obama. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZW2gmc2QKE

Maya Angelou. https://www.oprah.com/own-oprahshow/full-episode-conversation-with-oprah-and-maya-angelou-video

George Bush. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYWRKc6fbG4

How about talking about the history of slavery with Colson Whitehead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkl8T9j7vIo

Bill Gates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5lmBCnVALQ

I could go on. Would you argue none of these people are serious?
What about the hundreds of serious authors she has interviewed? None of them have a decent thought to think. Of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Most of us posting are American (although there are a couple Brits on this thread). Going to Oprah is admission that they're unserious and in trouble. She doesn't have serious guests, she has interesting guests or public interest stories. I guess they feel like they fell down a well...

I mean that’s your opinion. Oprah basically made Tyler Perry’s whole career and now he’s a billionaire who employs more African-American actors than anyone ever. So just because something is unserious to you doesn’t mean it is unserious to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

The difference is that it's exposure on their terms - I'm surprised PP doesn't see this.

I would agree if the negative exposure had ever stopped. The stories continued the drone photos the numerous things in the British tabs implying that Santa Barbara was some sort of LA suburb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

The difference is that it's exposure on their terms - I'm surprised PP doesn't see this.

I would agree if the negative exposure had ever stopped. The stories continued the drone photos the numerous things in the British tabs implying that Santa Barbara was some sort of LA suburb.

You are actually agreeing with the previous poster who said they wanted to flip the narrative rather than sitting back and pretending that the British Tabloids are anything but racist and misguided in their coverage of the couple and family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why Harry, who hated the photographers stalking him and his mom, would want to distance his kids and wife from that mess, especially with racially motivated attacks
Especially when he can look at his uncles and see his fate there, relegated to obscurity after being 3rd and 2nd in line for the throne
Edward seems OK with his low-key life, but not Andrew...

His mom INVITED photographers just as often as she didn't.

Wow. Thank you showing us that the same type of person who blamed Diana for the paparazzi harassment that eventually killed her — also blames Harry for the harassment against his family.

Diana paid with her life — and it wasn’t enough for you. Harry was smart to get out.