Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Huh? I agreed with that. But if his goal is for them not to do embarrassing things for money then practically he needs to give him money. I don’t get the pearl clutching over them doing the Oprah interview when Prince Charles knows Harry has no money and no marketable skills.

They are wealthy. They choose to live in an expensive mansion. No one owes them anything - Harry and His First Wife would have been just fine living on his inheritance most anywhere in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

Actually, the value has risen to $13.8 million when Harry turned 30 and had access to it. He’s turning 37 this year so add another 6 years to that in investment gains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

No one told them to move back to America. They could have been well-protected in Canada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

What about Meghan’s millions? Is that just “her” money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

No one told them to move back to America. They could have been well-protected in Canada.

You all are funny, the haters harassed them in Canada too. Angry that Canada or the UK was paying for security for in their words ‘a couple that was neither Canadian nor resident in Britain’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

No one told them to move back to America. They could have been well-protected in Canada.

You all are funny, the haters harassed them in Canada too. Angry that Canada or the UK was paying for security for in their words ‘a couple that was neither Canadian nor resident in Britain’

It’s a lot harder to protect them in Los Angeles. When the kids are older and attend the tony privates in the city Meghan will insist on, the price tag will climb accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

No one told them to move back to America. They could have been well-protected in Canada.

You all are funny, the haters harassed them in Canada too. Angry that Canada or the UK was paying for security for in their words ‘a couple that was neither Canadian nor resident in Britain’

If H&M are extremely concerned about their safety and if they are truly among the most endangered celebrities in the world, then it’s a terrible idea for them to do showy, controversial things like international tell alls with Oprah. Security experts would advise them to maintain a low profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Huh? I agreed with that. But if his goal is for them not to do embarrassing things for money then practically he needs to give him money. I don’t get the pearl clutching over them doing the Oprah interview when Prince Charles knows Harry has no money and no marketable skills.

So you’re saying Harry should hold his family hostage for his personal expenses once he quit his job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Huh? I agreed with that. But if his goal is for them not to do embarrassing things for money then practically he needs to give him money. I don’t get the pearl clutching over them doing the Oprah interview when Prince Charles knows Harry has no money and no marketable skills.

So you’re saying Harry should hold his family hostage for his personal expenses once he quit his job?

CEOs get golden parachutes all the time and I don't know what Charles' deal with Harry is (Harry has always been nicer to Charles than William) but he gave both of Camilla Parker-Bowles' children full trusts when he married their mother.

Those aren't his kids. They never have been and never will be. But he cut off his own son?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

Don't forget someone sending threats that they would put a knife through Meghan's pregnant belly around the time of her baby shower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has “no money”?! He inherited $10 million from Diana! Sorry if that isn’t enough to live on, smh.

It’s not enough to cover security AND live when you’re getting death threats from White supremacists.

It was their choice to leave.

DP. I think they made the right choice. They were sacrificing their mental well-being in the UK for physical security. The UK tabloid was waging a constant campaign against Meghan with total lies (remember Megs' Commandments? - they came out in recanted it later) and quite frankly - the Sussexs were still receiving death threats in the UK as well.

And did you forget the whole impetus for them fleeing the UK was the BRF refusing not only titles for Archie but also the security that Harry has received his whole life?

Harassers were arrested for sending fake anthrax to Kensington Palace addressed to the couple, another man was sent to jail for calling Harry a race traitor, and another harasser showed up at Meghan's public engagement.

Royal family security is high-level but with Charles/William trying to strip their newborn of that same security, knowing what kind of threats they were receiving, I'd leave too.

This is false. Charles didn’t try to strip a newborn of security. He just decided to stop paying for it. Believe it or not, lots of adults support themselves and pay their own expenses.