New Netflix documentary: "Live to Lead" from Harry and Meghan

[Anonymous]

Their kids are gorgeous. Genetic diversity is good

[Anonymous]

Likely H and M (or their foundation / company) bought the rights to the series from the NMF and then sold it to Netflix. The partnership with NMF probably included a negotiation for them to speak at the UN and the Netflix partnership gives them the voiceover and exec producer credits.

[Anonymous]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CmWrVv0ORGN/

Sad that the fuming hate-stalkers play so fast and loose with the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

If I leave the company I lose my title of CFO though.

DP. But that’s not how any of this works. There’s tons of members of the royal family who are non working royals with titles, edward’s little boy etc. Andrew’s daughters, Elizabeth’s cousins, and really if Harry didn’t use the Duke of sussex he would still have the prince title. Also wasn’t the title a wedding present? Seems weird to try and claw it back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

+1. The Duke and Duchess title was bestowed on them by the queen and can not be easily taken away. Charles does not have the power to strip them of their titles. Parliament literally would have to pass a law to do this. Even if they were stripped of the Sussex title, Harry would always have the right to be called Prince Henry (and I think Meghan would be styled Princess Henry?). He is a "Prince of the Blood".

She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did.

NO I think she is not a princess because she herself was not of royal blood but instead gained it by marriage. You only get to be a non-royal who is called princess by marriage you marry the heir, as Diana did.

She is married to Prince Harry. That makes her a princess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

+1. The Duke and Duchess title was bestowed on them by the queen and can not be easily taken away. Charles does not have the power to strip them of their titles. Parliament literally would have to pass a law to do this. Even if they were stripped of the Sussex title, Harry would always have the right to be called Prince Henry (and I think Meghan would be styled Princess Henry?). He is a "Prince of the Blood".

She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did.

NO I think she is not a princess because she herself was not of royal blood but instead gained it by marriage. You only get to be a non-royal who is called princess by marriage you marry the heir, as Diana did.

She is married to Prince Harry. That makes her a princess.

Exactly. She is a Princess but she is one because her husband is a Prince. It’s all very confusing but essentially - born Prince < Royal Duke < Heir < King (simplified). Harry was born Prince Henry of Wales so Meghan is technically Princess Henry. However he was given a Dukedom so his higher title is Duke of Sussex which means Meghan’s higher title is Duchess of Sussex.

Princess Diana was never technically “Princess Diana”, people just called her that because it sounds better. She was The Princess of Wales and then Diana, Princess of Wales when she got divorced. Just like Kate is not Princess Kate, even though some people call her that. She will be The Princess of Wales and then Queen Catherine.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

+1. The Duke and Duchess title was bestowed on them by the queen and can not be easily taken away. Charles does not have the power to strip them of their titles. Parliament literally would have to pass a law to do this. Even if they were stripped of the Sussex title, Harry would always have the right to be called Prince Henry (and I think Meghan would be styled Princess Henry?). He is a "Prince of the Blood".

She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did.

NO I think she is not a princess because she herself was not of royal blood but instead gained it by marriage. You only get to be a non-royal who is called princess by marriage you marry the heir, as Diana did.

She is married to Prince Harry. That makes her a princess.

You are mistaken. That made her a Duchess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

+1. The Duke and Duchess title was bestowed on them by the queen and can not be easily taken away. Charles does not have the power to strip them of their titles. Parliament literally would have to pass a law to do this. Even if they were stripped of the Sussex title, Harry would always have the right to be called Prince Henry (and I think Meghan would be styled Princess Henry?). He is a "Prince of the Blood".

She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did.

NO I think she is not a princess because she herself was not of royal blood but instead gained it by marriage. You only get to be a non-royal who is called princess by marriage you marry the heir, as Diana did.

She is married to Prince Harry. That makes her a princess.

You are mistaken. That made her a Duchess.

DP. Hate to go on a technicality here, but she is technically Princess Henry by marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

The full statement just reads more like an explanation of the extent of their involvement. Not distancing herself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

+1. The Duke and Duchess title was bestowed on them by the queen and can not be easily taken away. Charles does not have the power to strip them of their titles. Parliament literally would have to pass a law to do this. Even if they were stripped of the Sussex title, Harry would always have the right to be called Prince Henry (and I think Meghan would be styled Princess Henry?). He is a "Prince of the Blood".

She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did.

NO I think she is not a princess because she herself was not of royal blood but instead gained it by marriage. You only get to be a non-royal who is called princess by marriage you marry the heir, as Diana did.

She is married to Prince Harry. That makes her a princess.

You are mistaken. That made her a Duchess.

NP: Her marriage made her Princess Henry. In addition, the Queen gave them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

No. They are still Duke and Duchess but not longer His/Her Royal Highness. Harry is still Prince Harry. Meghan is not a Princess because she is not of Royal blood but rather married in.

William and Catherine are now the Prince and Princess of Wales. Catherine became Princess of Wales despite not being of Royal blood herself because she is married to the heir.

There is no new Duke of Cambridge.

When William's oldest son George marries, he may become Duke of Cambridge (or may be given a different Dukedom). If William is already King at that point, then George will become the new Prince of Wales.

Prince or Princess of Wales (if the Heir is a woman) is always the title of the direct next heir to the throne.

Then there is the Duke of York. This title is usually given to the second son of the reigning Monarch. Despite Harry being the second son he doesn't have it because the title is being occupied by Prince Andrew still. So most likely after Andrew dies it will pass to Princess Charlotte, and she will be the first ever Duchess of York. That said it is a now pretty ignominious title thanks to Prince Andrew.

What’s interesting in all of this is that as the heir presumptive, Princess Elizabeth was never the Princess of Wales — since there was always the possibility that at any point, her father could also father a son, who would get the title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

You read the whole article, right? Not just the headline?
Even the DM’s own article doesn’t support that “distances” assertion.
Lol Reading the titles and —maybe — glancing at the pictures really shouldn’t be enough…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

All the statement says is that Arden's only participation was agreeing to and filming the interview in 2019 with an understanding it would be presented in written form. She was notified in 2021 that NMF and Netflix had made a deal to broadcast the interviews and was notified in May 2022 that Harry and Meghan would introduce the Netflix series.