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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally have not read any of the 300 pages of this thread but I just stopped in to say that I am thrilled that Harry and Meghan are able to attempt to live a relatively normal life as non-royals simply because they want to.

Harry did not have any choice in whether or not he was a royal until now. Meghan did but apparently she didn't like it. It's 2020, people get to decide whether they want to be male or female, gay or straight, married or unmarried, black or white, etc. etc. etc.

Why shouldn't this couple get to decide whether they want to be considered royals and where they want to live and raise their kids?

Yay to them!

Ahem people don't get to decide whether they're gay or straight or black or white.... just saying.

Most of the controversy on this thread was over whether or not the press scrutiny was unfair or not, racist or not. The observation that running away from the British press to still live a quite public life has a hypocrisy of it's own remains valid.

The couple made a choice. And life goes on. I imagine they'll settle into some kind of semi tacky Kardashian celebrity, famous for being famous hawking their names as a brand. I do wish them best of luck.

Dp- oh yes. We can all tell you only wish them well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they didn’t give up state funded security or Charles’s money.
They only have to repay Frogmore. That is hardly financially independent.

They can no longer use HRH, but the Duke of Sussex title remains.

Interesting.

The dukedom can only be withdrawn via an act of Parliament. The Queen can give honors but she doesn't revoke them. And this almost never happens. Frankly, it would have to be treason.

The HRH is not the same as a title. It's a designation. Withdrawing the HRH is also important for political reasons. I believe by not being "royal" allows the Sussexes to live in Canada. If they still had the HRH the the Canadian law (or precedence, really) would forbid them from living in Canada as official royals are not allowed, by precedence, to live in any of the Commonwealth countries outside Britain. If you have a HRH you are a representative of the Queen. There are legal implications.

That said, the HRH isn't going away entirely. They're just not allowed to use it while living outside Britain. Harry can always take it back up in the future if he moves back to Britain and rejoins the official Royal family, such as after a divorce.

Good clarification, but it sounds like they are not allowed to use the HRH even in Britain.

Of course. They are not members of the royal family any more. They cannot act on behalf of the Queen or hold certain appointments that only royals can hold. There is a legal dimension to having the HRH. Their demands for the private eye means they are not willing to take thr public role demanded by having the HRH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The less they appear with the royal family, the less royal they will seem.

He is not in direct line to the throne so this choice makes sense. He's like any other grandchild of the Queen that is not the direct line to the throne. He should be entitled to a life of his own.

Sure. But the royal perks are not going out the door with him.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Archie realizes what his flaky parents lost in the horse-trading.

They didn’t lose anything. Zara is the eldest grandchild and the Queen’s first, she went to the best schools and had all the privileges of the daughter of the Princess Royal. Now she’s in her 40s, no HRH or title, can’t afford her own house and is hawking strollers in ads.

If anything Archie will be grateful to be handed tens of millions by his parents when he’s an adult - British estate and inheritance tax free.

She's hardly broke. She has a house on Anne's estate and lives quietly. Not vulgarly. She chose this. Just as Meghan chose to move to Canada and to launch some brand

Archie won't be inheriting any wealth tax free. He will be subject to both UK and any American inheritance laws.

And British inheritance laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Archie won’t have a British accent. Wonder where he will be educated?

In a private school in Vancouver like I thought all along.

Link?

[Anonymous]

They will amass a sizable fortune of their own, and won’t be at the whim of William down the road.
Smart smart smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think was a good outcome for the Queen in this horrible situation. . She was smart to let them keep HRH but not use it because that way when they divorce (and they will) you can bring Harry back in. Smart to also make sure he always has a U.K. home and I predict Megan goes there zero. Also if they do something wacky everyone will know they are not representing England. Also like that they have to pay back the money spent in Frogmore. Will see what the future holds and hopefully they make it but it will be hard. He is essentially no longer royal and will have to find something to do. She will be fine and back to making bad tv

Harry was born a prince. He will always be royal.

If you own something but you can’t use it, do you really own it?

I don’t think the HRH matter to the public at large, it’s just a symbol. The value lies in the access, relationships and platform the Royal family provides. They no longer have those. I am sure there will be some interest in them as celebrities but the wealthy and powerful (those who can donate to your foundation) no longer have any use for them. Hopefully this is a learning experience for both, especially Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The less they appear with the royal family, the less royal they will seem.

He is not in direct line to the throne so this choice makes sense. He's like any other grandchild of the Queen that is not the direct line to the throne. He should be entitled to a life of his own.

Sure. But the royal perks are not going out the door with him.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Archie realizes what his flaky parents lost in the horse-trading.

They didn’t lose anything. Zara is the eldest grandchild and the Queen’s first, she went to the best schools and had all the privileges of the daughter of the Princess Royal. Now she’s in her 40s, no HRH or title, can’t afford her own house and is hawking strollers in ads.

If anything Archie will be grateful to be handed tens of millions by his parents when he’s an adult - British estate and inheritance tax free.

None of the Queen’s grandchildren are broke, so to imply that is laughable. Anne chose to decline titles for her kids so they could make their own way. Andrew would have been wise to do likewise. Zara probably chooses to live on her mother’s estate due to the horses. She and her husband make good money from their endorsements. And each of the Queen’s grandchildren as well as Princess Margaret’s heirs received millions of dollars in their own right from a trust established by the Queen Mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They will amass a sizable fortune of their own, and won’t be at the whim of William down the road.
Smart smart smart.

They wanted to amass a large fortune using their constitutional role.

Awful awful awful

[Anonymous]

It’s Wallis Simpson all over again. He will come to resent her.

[Anonymous]

I can see Meghan participating in an Oprah “Live Your Best Life” tour.

[Anonymous]

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-will-repay-renovation-money-on-frogmore-cottage/

So now that they are also paying back the renovation what else is there to criticize?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally have not read any of the 300 pages of this thread but I just stopped in to say that I am thrilled that Harry and Meghan are able to attempt to live a relatively normal life as non-royals simply because they want to.

Harry did not have any choice in whether or not he was a royal until now. Meghan did but apparently she didn't like it. It's 2020, people get to decide whether they want to be male or female, gay or straight, married or unmarried, black or white, etc. etc. etc.

Why shouldn't this couple get to decide whether they want to be considered royals and where they want to live and raise their kids?

Yay to them!

Ahem people don't get to decide whether they're gay or straight or black or white.... just saying.

Most of the controversy on this thread was over whether or not the press scrutiny was unfair or not, racist or not. The observation that running away from the British press to still live a quite public life has a hypocrisy of it's own remains valid.

The couple made a choice. And life goes on. I imagine they'll settle into some kind of semi tacky Kardashian celebrity, famous for being famous hawking their names as a brand. I do wish them best of luck.

Dp- oh yes. We can all tell you only wish them well.

No, the controversy is their hypocrisy - the fact that they want to keep drawing on public funds (for security) and from Charles, while claiming they want financial independence.

The fact that they claim to be enviornmentalists while having a massive carbon footprint.

The fact that they want to be royal, but not actually do the royal work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s Wallis Simpson all over again. He will come to resent her.

Well, Harry didn’t have to give up the throne for Meghan. He’ll be happy to let Meghan be the star of their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-will-repay-renovation-money-on-frogmore-cottage/

So now that they are also paying back the renovation what else is there to criticize?

Are they also paying for their security? No, so there's that.

There's also the Clinton foundation model they want to follow, but since I'm an American - that's for the British to get upset about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had it on good authority that if they relinquished their titles all the MM haters would chill. That’s what happened right??

Who is this “good authority”?

PP is poking at all the Meghan critics that who claimed they only objected to the hypocrisy of H and M wanting to be independent and keep their titles at the same time. This calls that bluff.

We are all individuals with our own thoughts, like Harry and Meghan.

Exactly. I don’t understand the need for some to jump on every sentence they disagree with.