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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dp. You can say you disagree without accusing someone of having a psychiatric condition because I’m sure you know as little about this one as you do about narcissistic personality disorder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that even the distant York’s were important enough to the queen to warrant extravagant weddings. Archie (and his parents) is a thousand times more important.

You’re the one arguing he’s irrelevant. Everyone else sees the reality that he’s very important to the queen and the royal family. Especially right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that even the distant York’s were important enough to the queen to warrant extravagant weddings. Archie (and his parents) is a thousand times more important.

You’re the one arguing he’s irrelevant. Everyone else sees the reality that he’s very important to the queen and the royal family. Especially right now.

I think its clear William won't be granting Archie any splashy royal wedding when he's ready to get married in about 30 years unless there is a reconciling. His sister in law has decided she wants nothing to do with the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that even the distant York’s were important enough to the queen to warrant extravagant weddings. Archie (and his parents) is a thousand times more important.

You’re the one arguing he’s irrelevant. Everyone else sees the reality that he’s very important to the queen and the royal family. Especially right now.

Lol why is Archie a thousand times more important?

[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.

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

When they were young, they were very popular. Sarah Furguson obviously was nowhere near as popular as Diana but she and her daughters generated tons of media coverage. It’s likely that Archie follows a similar trajectory, but who knows? His parents opting out of the Firm means he could be even more famous world wide as he grows up. It’s all uncharted territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that even the distant York’s were important enough to the queen to warrant extravagant weddings. Archie (and his parents) is a thousand times more important.

You’re the one arguing he’s irrelevant. Everyone else sees the reality that he’s very important to the queen and the royal family. Especially right now.

Lol why is Archie a thousand times more important?

For starters his father is the most popular of the royal family. More popular than the queen, more popular than the future king, and the second in line for the throne. That’s why he’s more important to the palace than the York’s.

Secondly, he’s more important in terms of succession. He’s further up on the succession chain than the York’s.

[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.

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

When they were young, they were very popular. Sarah Furguson obviously was nowhere near as popular as Diana but she and her daughters generated tons of media coverage. It’s likely that Archie follows a similar trajectory, but who knows? His parents opting out of the Firm means he could be even more famous world wide as he grows up. It’s all uncharted territory.

Over 100,000 people turned out to witness Andrew and Fergie's wedding. There was something coined "Fergie Fever" at the time.

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/18/style/fergie-fever-as-royal-wedding-nears.html

[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.

With three little Cambridges, there is more than enough kindling for the cuteness mill for the next fifteen years, at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

When they were young, they were very popular. Sarah Furguson obviously was nowhere near as popular as Diana but she and her daughters generated tons of media coverage. It’s likely that Archie follows a similar trajectory, but who knows? His parents opting out of the Firm means he could be even more famous world wide as he grows up. It’s all uncharted territory.

Over 100,000 people turned out to witness Andrew and Fergie's wedding. There was something coined "Fergie Fever" at the time.

Yes, and 2 million spectators came to see Princess Diana!s wedding. That’s the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that even the distant York’s were important enough to the queen to warrant extravagant weddings. Archie (and his parents) is a thousand times more important.

You’re the one arguing he’s irrelevant. Everyone else sees the reality that he’s very important to the queen and the royal family. Especially right now.

Lol why is Archie a thousand times more important?

For starters his father is the most popular of the royal family. More popular than the queen, more popular than the future king, and the second in line for the throne. That’s why he’s more important to the palace than the York’s.

Secondly, he’s more important in terms of succession. He’s further up on the succession chain than the York’s.

Meghan is that you? Or is this a delusional paid post from your PR firm? Harry is not more popular than the Queen. This has been soundly proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that even the distant York’s were important enough to the queen to warrant extravagant weddings. Archie (and his parents) is a thousand times more important.

You’re the one arguing he’s irrelevant. Everyone else sees the reality that he’s very important to the queen and the royal family. Especially right now.

Lol why is Archie a thousand times more important?

For starters his father is the most popular of the royal family. More popular than the queen, more popular than the future king, and the second in line for the throne. That’s why he’s more important to the palace than the York’s.

Secondly, he’s more important in terms of succession. He’s further up on the succession chain than the York’s.

Correction: his father was the most popular of the royal family. Oh well.

[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.

With three little Cambridges, there is more than enough kindling for the cuteness mill for the next fifteen years, at least.

Funny how there are 3 little Cambridge’s right now and Archie is still getting tons of media attention...

[Anonymous]

Stop feeding the delusional poster and her conspiracy theories.

[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.

Harry has said openly, in recorded interviews, that he wanted to quit being a senior royal when he got out of the Army. He loved being in the Army. He hated being a senior royal.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a30456687/prince-harry-hinted-at-leaving-royal-family/