Meghan and Prince Harry are moving to the U.S./Canada - OFFICIAL

[Anonymous]

Archie isn't important to the line of succession, but he is important to the Palace. Archie, like Meghan and Kate and Harry and Will and Will's children, are imminently marketable. They are pretty and/or cute and very useful for keeping a charming face on the monarchy. The courtiers who run the palace are perfectly willing to prevent Archie from leaving the UK if they thought it was best for the palace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you all think Prince William is against interracial marriage?

He's probably not keen on Americans marrying the BRF.

I think it’s more like he’s not keen on bright, smart women.

Or gold diggers.

All he has to do is look at his wife and his wife’s sister for that.

They came from wealth, they married into very great wealth. BTW, is Kate planning to hawk the royal name for millions?

No they came from a flight attendant and party supply store owner who put every pound into private school so they could land rich husbands.

Meanwhile Uncle Garry financed it and after it worked the son-in-laws paid for their house and $20,000 a week vacations in the West Indies.

Sounds like all the hard work and effort they put into their kids worked better than they could ever have imagined. Kudos to them. The rest of us can only hope to be so lucky in our efforts.

DP. I would not want Kate's life for my daughter. Not in a million years.

Agreed. Acting like a subordinate in life. Won't she eventually be expecyed to curtsy to her husband? Even now... curtsy to someone because of their place in the family. *barf* Smile pretty for the important people.

And don’t forget swallow your pride and look the other way when your husband cheats with your (supposed) friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Queen absolutely held custody of Diana's children and Fergie's children over their heads. They were told play nice or you won't have access to.your children. She is not above doing it again.

Canada is a separate legal system from the UK, so you have some protection there and it is an easily trip to have game the baby to th e US if you need an American court for more protection. And it's a good PR compromise for Harry. He's in a Commonwealth country, but not the UK

Custody issues don't come up unless in divorce proceedings. The Cambridges travel with their children internationally all the time.

It seems that both Diana and Fergie had ample access to their children. Diana would have even more if she didn't prefer to hang out in Mediterranean with rich Arabs.

Archie isn't important to the crown. The comparison here is Fergie (not Diana, whose son was in the direct line of succession), and Fergie had plenty of access to her kids and joint custody.

And a terrible settlement in exchange for that

That’s her own fault. When asked what she wanted, she said ‘your friendship’. Okay.

Sounds like she was afraid of her Mother in Law, the Queen.

She was right to be afraid. Diana died because she crossed the Queen. Epstein is dead because the scandal got too close to the Queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you all think Prince William is against interracial marriage?

He's probably not keen on Americans marrying the BRF.

I think it’s more like he’s not keen on bright, smart women.

Or gold diggers.

All he has to do is look at his wife and his wife’s sister for that.

They came from wealth, they married into very great wealth. BTW, is Kate planning to hawk the royal name for millions?

No they came from a flight attendant and party supply store owner who put every pound into private school so they could land rich husbands.

Meanwhile Uncle Garry financed it and after it worked the son-in-laws paid for their house and $20,000 a week vacations in the West Indies.

Sounds like all the hard work and effort they put into their kids worked better than they could ever have imagined. Kudos to them. The rest of us can only hope to be so lucky in our efforts.

DP. I would not want Kate's life for my daughter. Not in a million years.

+2

You wouldn’t want them to have a stable comfortable life with beautiful children, no financial worries and a happy, supportive family? Okay.

I wouldn’t want her to have to quietly accept being cheated on and to have to literally wait around for a decade for someone to marry her when she is likely smarter than her husband. I wouldn’t want her to have seemingly no friends of her own and have to live with her in laws who also control every aspect of her life. I also wouldn’t want her to marry into a dysfunctional family were everyone is either divorced or a philanderer.

"Live with her in laws." LOL! In that huge place???? I would. I don't think they seem any more or less dysfunctional than any other human family. They all seem genuinely happy. I also don't believe William cheated on Kate. Seems like a great guy and a good father too.

They absolutely have more divorces in their family than the average family. Williams parents and all of his aunts/uncles except one are divorced. That is a lot. That’s like “hillbilly elegy” levels of divorce and quite odd considering wealthier people on average get divorced less frequently.

As were his maternal grandparents, and his great aunt (Margaret). On both sides of his family going back to grandparents, the only ones who didn't divorce are the Queen and his Uncle Edward. That's actually pretty amazing, when you think about it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with his generation.

Hey, the Church of England was founded because Henry VIII wanted a divorce from his first wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Archie isn't important to the line of succession, but he is important to the Palace. Archie, like Meghan and Kate and Harry and Will and Will's children, are imminently marketable. They are pretty and/or cute and very useful for keeping a charming face on the monarchy. The courtiers who run the palace are perfectly willing to prevent Archie from leaving the UK if they thought it was best for the palace.

Archie is no more important than the Yorklets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you all think Prince William is against interracial marriage?

He's probably not keen on Americans marrying the BRF.

I think it’s more like he’s not keen on bright, smart women.

Or gold diggers.

All he has to do is look at his wife and his wife’s sister for that.

They came from wealth, they married into very great wealth. BTW, is Kate planning to hawk the royal name for millions?

No they came from a flight attendant and party supply store owner who put every pound into private school so they could land rich husbands.

Meanwhile Uncle Garry financed it and after it worked the son-in-laws paid for their house and $20,000 a week vacations in the West Indies.

Sounds like all the hard work and effort they put into their kids worked better than they could ever have imagined. Kudos to them. The rest of us can only hope to be so lucky in our efforts.

DP. I would not want Kate's life for my daughter. Not in a million years.[/quote
Agreed. Acting like a subordinate in life. Won't she eventually be expecyed to curtsy to her husband? Even now... curtsy to someone because of their place in the family. *barf* Smile pretty for the important people.

And yet - Meghan loves that part of royal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Archie isn't important to the line of succession, but he is important to the Palace. Archie, like Meghan and Kate and Harry and Will and Will's children, are imminently marketable. They are pretty and/or cute and very useful for keeping a charming face on the monarchy. The courtiers who run the palace are perfectly willing to prevent Archie from leaving the UK if they thought it was best for the palace.

Good point. Were Prince Charles's sibllings/children as famous as William and Harry's family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Archie isn't important to the line of succession, but he is important to the Palace. Archie, like Meghan and Kate and Harry and Will and Will's children, are imminently marketable. They are pretty and/or cute and very useful for keeping a charming face on the monarchy. The courtiers who run the palace are perfectly willing to prevent Archie from leaving the UK if they thought it was best for the palace.

Archie is no more important than the Yorklets.

Right and the Queen thought that they are important enough to warrant a splashy royal wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's why when people go on and on about how they'll be divorced soon and it will prove how terrible Meghan is, I just laugh. They may well get divorced, but how would that be any worse than his family's current marriage history.

Prince Harry as a young man was a happy go lucky guy who enjoyed his royal role. It looked like helping people brought him joy. Ever since he got married, he has looked miserable. Could be his protectiveness, but he’s miserable either way. Some people don’t mind misery, but for a lot of people - it gets to be too much. I also predict a divorce, not because I think Meghan is a terrible person but because those two look miserable. Yes, they look like they are in love but they are miserable, and I don’t think they will be able to turn that around. They think running away from it will turn it around, but I don’t think it will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why when people go on and on about how they'll be divorced soon and it will prove how terrible Meghan is, I just laugh. They may well get divorced, but how would that be any worse than his family's current marriage history.

Prince Harry as a young man was a happy go lucky guy who enjoyed his royal role. It looked like helping people brought him joy. Ever since he got married, he has looked miserable. Could be his protectiveness, but he’s miserable either way. Some people don’t mind misery, but for a lot of people - it gets to be too much. I also predict a divorce, not because I think Meghan is a terrible person but because those two look miserable. Yes, they look like they are in love but they are miserable, and I don’t think they will be able to turn that around. They think running away from it will turn it around, but I don’t think it will.

It they are still intending to help people. The problem with being a Royal is it defines who you can help, when, and how. Part of what made Diana so unusual is that she engaged in the nitty gritty, which most of the royals don’t do.

And of course he’s miserable - the media won’t give his new family a moment’s peace or grace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why when people go on and on about how they'll be divorced soon and it will prove how terrible Meghan is, I just laugh. They may well get divorced, but how would that be any worse than his family's current marriage history.

Prince Harry as a young man was a happy go lucky guy who enjoyed his royal role. It looked like helping people brought him joy. Ever since he got married, he has looked miserable. Could be his protectiveness, but he’s miserable either way. Some people don’t mind misery, but for a lot of people - it gets to be too much. I also predict a divorce, not because I think Meghan is a terrible person but because those two look miserable. Yes, they look like they are in love but they are miserable, and I don’t think they will be able to turn that around. They think running away from it will turn it around, but I don’t think it will.

And having a baby late in life, the change that brings as well as post partum hormones compound the problems.

That was too many changes too fast for both after a lifetime of only worrying about themselves. This reminds me of Carolyn and John Kennedy. He felt horrible and tried to protect her from incessant press/media coverage—most negative. She got angry and defiant. They ended up hating each other and were on the brink of divorce before the plane went down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Part of what made Diana so unusual is that she engaged in the nitty gritty, which most of the royals don’t do.

And of course he’s miserable - the media won’t give his new family a moment’s peace or grace.

Uh, what do you mean? The royals engage in the nitty gritty all the time. The royal duty. Hospitals, schools, charities. There are 3,000 charities in Britain with a royal figurehead and yes, they go to the major events. That's the dull, tedious nitty gritty. No on exemplifies this more than perhaps Anne these days.

Diana was glamorous and there was resentment by other royals that the glamour overshadowed all the nitty gritty work they did, which the press didn't pay attention to because it wasn't Diana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Archie isn't important to the line of succession, but he is important to the Palace. Archie, like Meghan and Kate and Harry and Will and Will's children, are imminently marketable. They are pretty and/or cute and very useful for keeping a charming face on the monarchy. The courtiers who run the palace are perfectly willing to prevent Archie from leaving the UK if they thought it was best for the palace.

Archie is no more important than the Yorklets.

Right and the Queen thought that they are important enough to warrant a splashy royal wedding.

What's your point? They are still royal. Nothing to do with custody and not raising a child in the UK.

[Anonymous]

They just seem like not-so-smart attention seekers. I guess I will be seeing them a lot on the tabloid covers in the checkout line at the grocery store. Good for them, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Queen absolutely held custody of Diana's children and Fergie's children over their heads. They were told play nice or you won't have access to.your children. She is not above doing it again.

Canada is a separate legal system from the UK, so you have some protection there and it is an easily trip to have game the baby to th e US if you need an American court for more protection. And it's a good PR compromise for Harry. He's in a Commonwealth country, but not the UK

Custody issues don't come up unless in divorce proceedings. The Cambridges travel with their children internationally all the time.

It seems that both Diana and Fergie had ample access to their children. Diana would have even more if she didn't prefer to hang out in Mediterranean with rich Arabs.

Archie isn't important to the crown. The comparison here is Fergie (not Diana, whose son was in the direct line of succession), and Fergie had plenty of access to her kids and joint custody.

And a terrible settlement in exchange for that

That’s her own fault. When asked what she wanted, she said ‘your friendship’. Okay.

Sounds like she was afraid of her Mother in Law, the Queen.

She was right to be afraid. Diana died because she crossed the Queen. Epstein is dead because the scandal got too close to the Queen.

You sound like a paranoid schizophrenic, pp. Really.