Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine it is so painful for Harry to have a dad who has essentially rejected him. I am not a huge fan of H&M because they come across as money greedy but the news that Charles plans to create a monarchy where he excludes Harry’s kids is terrible and feels racist. He may want a smaller monarchy but he only has two kids and their mother was killed in a horrific way. He has zero sensitivity. He should be trying to fix things instead of creating more space. A smarter person would say okay if you want the titles/security then you need to agree that they spend a certain amount of time in U.K. etc.

The monarchy is a separate entity from the family, though. In order to survive, the monarchy has to be managed as a business, which I understand is hard when family dynamics are involved. But it's not racist. British taxpayers support the BRF and they don't want to pay for security, etc., for more members than a small core group. If Archie and Lilibet are extended titles and full working royal status, they'll expect the same for their kids eventually. Where does it end? Harry is #7 in line at this point; he was always meant to have a scaled-back role after William had kids (see Andrew, Edward, and Anne - they're not equals in title or status to Charles, nor should they be). I think the fact that he was allowed to essentially have co-equal status to William as a senior royal until after he was married is a good indication of the fact that the BRF has been lenient and generous with Harry (possibly too lenient and generous, given the tremendous level of entitlement he seems to have now) - probably because, in part, of his mother dying when he was so young. As the future head of the institution, Charles needs to be clear-headed about making strategic decisions, because poor ones might take down the whole thing. I am somewhat sympathetic to the situation on a personal level, but it's really not personal.

Also, let's be clear that they weren't excluded from royal titles and privileges. If they had cooperated with the BRF's expectations and stayed in the UK, they still had a luxurious, rent-free royal residence (Frogmore Cottage) that was theirs for life, status as "senior royals", taxpayer-funded security (which seems to be extremely important to them), and secondary titles (at minimum) for their kids. Archie is technically styled as the Earl of Dumbarton, H&M just chose not to use it. The problems with this arrangement appeared to be that (1) it depended on H&M being a "secondary" couple in status to W&K, which Meghan (and possibly also Harry) couldn't stand, and (2) they wanted to monetize their royal status by doing high-profile commercial deals and become global celebrities in their own right, which is fundamentally incompatible with being a senior royal. So when they were told that they had to choose between staying in the BRF and striking out on their own, they chose the latter. But to now complain and whine about how they voluntarily quit the BRF and moved abroad and have now been (as a totally foreseeable consequence) cut off from the perks that the BRF enjoys is absurdly entitled and frankly, just stupid.

There is a huge difference from the hundreds of hangers in and two brothers whose dad will be king. Same two brothers whose mother diedd in a highly sketchy manner. No security. In her case she opted for none but we see what happens when you do not have security. They left after they were told their son would have no security and would not be a prince and I do not blame them. Charles should make better decisions. He should find a way to make this work better. Charles is already not likable and this makes it worse. I would allow the kids to have titles provided they were raised in England at least a certain so mount per year. You can always find a way to work something out. I could see a greater chance of monarchy going under if this present situation is not resolved. Megan is not a dummy and she will make sure it works out for them. I am starting to like her more. Maybe Harry needed a Megan because he is weak without her.

They chose not to work and then complained because they still wanted all the benefits. Some people might think that sounds very entitled.

no they wanted to keep working, but the brf wanted them to work less... hence why they've been more productive in the last 3 months than any w&k have been in years. you guys can't keep your stories straight, can you?

[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:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

All the more reason to strike out on his own. Harry is a better man, husband, and father than Andrew because he chose to leave and make his money and not rely on scraps and the generosity of his brother. Charles is going to cut Andrew and his daughter's off the dole as soon as he gets the okay. No need for Harry to stick around and face the same fate by William.

So why whine about it endlessly? If anything Charles did them a favor.

Who is whining endlessly? They gave one joint interview, and I believe Harry gave two separate smaller interviews (via the Dax podcast and his Apple series). None of those things were even "whining", just recounting his own version of events. Funny because Charles himself (and others in the BRF) have raised the very same critiques that Harry has, but y'all are acting like he's the first one, and that that should make him the devil.

“One interview”? Their entire time since they left the BRF has been a nonstop grievance tour.

What other joint interviews have they given?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They already registered the domain names for the second baby before the birth, which leads me to think that the story of them asking the queen as soon as she was born doesn’t line up. Harry stating he would have chosen a different name if the Queen wasn’t pleased doesn’t hold water - sounds like they were going ahead with the name full speed.

Didn't people buy up George's and (if I'm remembering correctly) Archie's domain names? If so, it make sense. I'm a nobody and I have tons of domains with different extensions for my super small business and family members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already registered the domain names for the second baby before the birth, which leads me to think that the story of them asking the queen as soon as she was born doesn’t line up. Harry stating he would have chosen a different name if the Queen wasn’t pleased doesn’t hold water - sounds like they were going ahead with the name full speed.

Didn't people buy up George's and (if I'm remembering correctly) Archie's domain names? If so, it make sense. I'm a nobody and I have tons of domains with different extensions for my super small business and family members.

+1, this is not abnormal behavior AT ALL. I don't have kids but my best friends (married) registered Gmail usernames (and potential variations) for their kids when they were born.

[Anonymous]

Anytime someone outside looks in, the reaction always seems to be the same. Meghan haters truly don't understand how bizarre and unhinged they look to the rest of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who would love to see the entire racist, pedophile-protecting, Nazi-sympathizer-supporting BRF go away permanently, I don't care whether H&M are whining or not.

That's what I don't get about the passionate H&M haters on this thread. Why do you want to protect the BRF so much that you let H&M take up so much space in your lives? It is a horrid institution. The BRF should go away. And, if the BRF goes away, so will H&M. Win win.

That's your opinion, and if it's truly the case that you're disgusted by the BRF and want it to go away, why are you on a thread discussing (partial) members of the BRF in your free time? Some of us like and are interested in the BRF (and possibly have too much free time), and don't want it to go away, which is why we're here and why we're discussing H&M's behavior.

When I read this thread, which isn't always, I mostly read because I find it entertaining. I also report racist posts (that isn't entertaining, of course).

The passionate defense of a racist, pedophile-protecting, Nazi-sympathizer institution does puzzle me, though. That having been said, I've reported enough racist posts that maybe I shouldn't be puzzled.

I do frequently read this thread, and am fine with admitting it, so I recognize you (“white lady who doesn’t care about the royals but comes on so that you can report racist posts”) - you post quite regularly for someone who hates the BRF and thinks it should go away. Again, it’s curious that you spend so much time posting and interacting here (with many people who like the BRF) if it disgusts you so much.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but clearly we (and the British public, which is the group whose opinions on the BRF are the relevant ones when it comes to the BRF’s continued existence) disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already registered the domain names for the second baby before the birth, which leads me to think that the story of them asking the queen as soon as she was born doesn’t line up. Harry stating he would have chosen a different name if the Queen wasn’t pleased doesn’t hold water - sounds like they were going ahead with the name full speed.

Didn't people buy up George's and (if I'm remembering correctly) Archie's domain names? If so, it make sense. I'm a nobody and I have tons of domains with different extensions for my super small business and family members.

+1, this is not abnormal behavior AT ALL. I don't have kids but my best friends (married) registered Gmail usernames (and potential variations) for their kids when they were born.

This is an entirely tangential and irrelevant issue to what the original post was getting at, which is that the timing of the domain buying suggests that they had firmly decided on the name before they spoke to the Queen. If true, that directly contradicts the Sussexes’ implication that they asked for her permission and wouldn’t have gone with it if she didn’t approve. (As opposed to telling her post facto.) And this is relevant because the Sussexes came out of “parental leave” specifically to dispute the BBC story that they didn’t ask for permission and threatened to sue over it.

[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:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

All the more reason to strike out on his own. Harry is a better man, husband, and father than Andrew because he chose to leave and make his money and not rely on scraps and the generosity of his brother. Charles is going to cut Andrew and his daughter's off the dole as soon as he gets the okay. No need for Harry to stick around and face the same fate by William.

So why whine about it endlessly? If anything Charles did them a favor.

Who is whining endlessly? They gave one joint interview, and I believe Harry gave two separate smaller interviews (via the Dax podcast and his Apple series). None of those things were even "whining", just recounting his own version of events. Funny because Charles himself (and others in the BRF) have raised the very same critiques that Harry has, but y'all are acting like he's the first one, and that that should make him the devil.

“One interview”? Their entire time since they left the BRF has been a nonstop grievance tour.

What other joint interviews have they given?

South Africa when no one asked Meghan if she was OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already registered the domain names for the second baby before the birth, which leads me to think that the story of them asking the queen as soon as she was born doesn’t line up. Harry stating he would have chosen a different name if the Queen wasn’t pleased doesn’t hold water - sounds like they were going ahead with the name full speed.

Didn't people buy up George's and (if I'm remembering correctly) Archie's domain names? If so, it make sense. I'm a nobody and I have tons of domains with different extensions for my super small business and family members.

+1, this is not abnormal behavior AT ALL. I don't have kids but my best friends (married) registered Gmail usernames (and potential variations) for their kids when they were born.

This is an entirely tangential and irrelevant issue to what the original post was getting at, which is that the timing of the domain buying suggests that they had firmly decided on the name before they spoke to the Queen. If true, that directly contradicts the Sussexes’ implication that they asked for her permission and wouldn’t have gone with it if she didn’t approve. (As opposed to telling her post facto.) And this is relevant because the Sussexes came out of “parental leave” specifically to dispute the BBC story that they didn’t ask for permission and threatened to sue over it.

genuine question, but don't you think you'd trust the word of the grandson of someone more than the word of an anonymous royal expert when it comes to ascertaining how said person feels about something? they very well could have registered the domain (and several others) before asking; I don't know how that's supposed to disprove their story.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

All the more reason to strike out on his own. Harry is a better man, husband, and father than Andrew because he chose to leave and make his money and not rely on scraps and the generosity of his brother. Charles is going to cut Andrew and his daughter's off the dole as soon as he gets the okay. No need for Harry to stick around and face the same fate by William.

So why whine about it endlessly? If anything Charles did them a favor.

Who is whining endlessly? They gave one joint interview, and I believe Harry gave two separate smaller interviews (via the Dax podcast and his Apple series). None of those things were even "whining", just recounting his own version of events. Funny because Charles himself (and others in the BRF) have raised the very same critiques that Harry has, but y'all are acting like he's the first one, and that that should make him the devil.

“One interview”? Their entire time since they left the BRF has been a nonstop grievance tour.

What other joint interviews have they given?

South Africa when no one asked Meghan if she was OK.

That was prior to their departure from the royal family, and wasn't exactly a joint interview. It also wasn't an interview per se; it was someone asking a question, and Meghan responded. Not sure why that's being characterized as whining. At this point I've seen significantly more whining about the supposed whining than the actual whining itself. Like, by orders of magnitude.

[Anonymous]

"As is often customary with public figures, a significant number of domains of any potential names that were considered were purchased by their team to protect against the exploitation of the name once it was later chosen and publicly shared," a spokesperson for Harry, 36, and Meghan, 39, tells PEOPLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already registered the domain names for the second baby before the birth, which leads me to think that the story of them asking the queen as soon as she was born doesn’t line up. Harry stating he would have chosen a different name if the Queen wasn’t pleased doesn’t hold water - sounds like they were going ahead with the name full speed.

Didn't people buy up George's and (if I'm remembering correctly) Archie's domain names? If so, it make sense. I'm a nobody and I have tons of domains with different extensions for my super small business and family members.

+1, this is not abnormal behavior AT ALL. I don't have kids but my best friends (married) registered Gmail usernames (and potential variations) for their kids when they were born.

This is an entirely tangential and irrelevant issue to what the original post was getting at, which is that the timing of the domain buying suggests that they had firmly decided on the name before they spoke to the Queen. If true, that directly contradicts the Sussexes’ implication that they asked for her permission and wouldn’t have gone with it if she didn’t approve. (As opposed to telling her post facto.) And this is relevant because the Sussexes came out of “parental leave” specifically to dispute the BBC story that they didn’t ask for permission and threatened to sue over it.

genuine question, but don't you think you'd trust the word of the grandson of someone more than the word of an anonymous royal expert when it comes to ascertaining how said person feels about something? they very well could have registered the domain (and several others) before asking; I don't know how that's supposed to disprove their story.

In this context, no. Because H&M have demonstrated a propensity to lie or misrepresent facts re: the BRF when it is to their advantage (e.g., suggesting that Archie was denied a title because he's mixed-race rather than because he wasn't entitled to one by the Letters Patent - there is no way that H&M were unaware of that). And since the BRF's longstanding media strategy is that it doesn't acknowledge or reply to rumors/tabloid stories, they are usually pretty confident that they can put out "their truth" without the BRF responding with its own version of events.

And the source clearly wasn't an "anonymous royal expert" who made some dubious claim - the BBC is considered a news outlet of record, akin to the NYT, not some random tabloid. They wouldn't publish a claim like this without impeccable sourcing. And that means the info came from the very top (aka the Queen's office, which isn't going to go rogue and report unapproved crap to the BBC about a family matter affecting the Queen.) The implication of this, which other British outlets which are familiar with the back channels between the British press and the BRF have also reported, is that this was information coming directly from the Queen/BRF. Secondary evidence for this is that the BBC is standing by the story, even after H&M threatened to sue, and that Buckingham Palace refused to issue a denial when asked directly whether it was true.

So in a he said/she said between H&M and the BRF on this issue, I'm going with the BRF's account because I think H&M are pretty manipulative and outright lie a lot of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who would love to see the entire racist, pedophile-protecting, Nazi-sympathizer-supporting BRF go away permanently, I don't care whether H&M are whining or not.

That's what I don't get about the passionate H&M haters on this thread. Why do you want to protect the BRF so much that you let H&M take up so much space in your lives? It is a horrid institution. The BRF should go away. And, if the BRF goes away, so will H&M. Win win.

That's your opinion, and if it's truly the case that you're disgusted by the BRF and want it to go away, why are you on a thread discussing (partial) members of the BRF in your free time? Some of us like and are interested in the BRF (and possibly have too much free time), and don't want it to go away, which is why we're here and why we're discussing H&M's behavior.

When I read this thread, which isn't always, I mostly read because I find it entertaining. I also report racist posts (that isn't entertaining, of course).

The passionate defense of a racist, pedophile-protecting, Nazi-sympathizer institution does puzzle me, though. That having been said, I've reported enough racist posts that maybe I shouldn't be puzzled.

I do frequently read this thread, and am fine with admitting it, so I recognize you (“white lady who doesn’t care about the royals but comes on so that you can report racist posts”) - you post quite regularly for someone who hates the BRF and thinks it should go away. Again, it’s curious that you spend so much time posting and interacting here (with many people who like the BRF) if it disgusts you so much.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but clearly we (and the British public, which is the group whose opinions on the BRF are the relevant ones when it comes to the BRF’s continued existence) disagree with you.

There are several people who report racist posts, and multiple who fit your description. I'm not sure I am the person you are talking about or not, but I'm fine being labeled as the person who reports racist posts.

Also, I'm Canadian. So, I have a stake in these racist grifters, unfortunately, and definitely have a more tangible interest than you do. I want Canada to cut ties entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me just say that Charles is truly a terrible father. There are reports that he is refusing to see Harry. We all know that he escaped to Scotland when Harry was there last time. This tells me that he truly is a selfish narcissist and always was. This was surely beyond hard growing up with a dad that is so selfish.
If all of this was a cry for help from Harry and Meghan, well he might be worse than that applying excuse Meghan has for a father.
I have no doubt that he messed up Harry totally. In fact, kudos to Harry for being an ok person with such a messed-up dad and family.

Remember, it was discovered that Charles had planted a story of Harry using drugs during his adolescence so that a sympathetic story of him reprimanding his son would circulate. He was never a good father -- to Harry, at least.

Really? Didn't know about that. I mean, what is there to say, this is the future King of the U.K. If you know this story, clearly many know it and don't care. Absolutely narcissist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine it is so painful for Harry to have a dad who has essentially rejected him. I am not a huge fan of H&M because they come across as money greedy but the news that Charles plans to create a monarchy where he excludes Harry’s kids is terrible and feels racist. He may want a smaller monarchy but he only has two kids and their mother was killed in a horrific way. He has zero sensitivity. He should be trying to fix things instead of creating more space. A smarter person would say okay if you want the titles/security then you need to agree that they spend a certain amount of time in U.K. etc.

The monarchy is a separate entity from the family, though. In order to survive, the monarchy has to be managed as a business, which I understand is hard when family dynamics are involved. But it's not racist. British taxpayers support the BRF and they don't want to pay for security, etc., for more members than a small core group. If Archie and Lilibet are extended titles and full working royal status, they'll expect the same for their kids eventually. Where does it end? Harry is #7 in line at this point; he was always meant to have a scaled-back role after William had kids (see Andrew, Edward, and Anne - they're not equals in title or status to Charles, nor should they be). I think the fact that he was allowed to essentially have co-equal status to William as a senior royal until after he was married is a good indication of the fact that the BRF has been lenient and generous with Harry (possibly too lenient and generous, given the tremendous level of entitlement he seems to have now) - probably because, in part, of his mother dying when he was so young. As the future head of the institution, Charles needs to be clear-headed about making strategic decisions, because poor ones might take down the whole thing. I am somewhat sympathetic to the situation on a personal level, but it's really not personal.

Also, let's be clear that they weren't excluded from royal titles and privileges. If they had cooperated with the BRF's expectations and stayed in the UK, they still had a luxurious, rent-free royal residence (Frogmore Cottage) that was theirs for life, status as "senior royals", taxpayer-funded security (which seems to be extremely important to them), and secondary titles (at minimum) for their kids. Archie is technically styled as the Earl of Dumbarton, H&M just chose not to use it. The problems with this arrangement appeared to be that (1) it depended on H&M being a "secondary" couple in status to W&K, which Meghan (and possibly also Harry) couldn't stand, and (2) they wanted to monetize their royal status by doing high-profile commercial deals and become global celebrities in their own right, which is fundamentally incompatible with being a senior royal. So when they were told that they had to choose between staying in the BRF and striking out on their own, they chose the latter. But to now complain and whine about how they voluntarily quit the BRF and moved abroad and have now been (as a totally foreseeable consequence) cut off from the perks that the BRF enjoys is absurdly entitled and frankly, just stupid.

There is a huge difference from the hundreds of hangers in and two brothers whose dad will be king. Same two brothers whose mother diedd in a highly sketchy manner. No security. In her case she opted for none but we see what happens when you do not have security. They left after they were told their son would have no security and would not be a prince and I do not blame them. Charles should make better decisions. He should find a way to make this work better. Charles is already not likable and this makes it worse. I would allow the kids to have titles provided they were raised in England at least a certain so mount per year. You can always find a way to work something out. I could see a greater chance of monarchy going under if this present situation is not resolved. Megan is not a dummy and she will make sure it works out for them. I am starting to like her more. Maybe Harry needed a Megan because he is weak without her.

They chose not to work and then complained because they still wanted all the benefits. Some people might think that sounds very entitled.

no they wanted to keep working, but the brf wanted them to work less... hence why they've been more productive in the last 3 months than any w&k have been in years. you guys can't keep your stories straight, can you?

LOL! You’re the one inventing new stories each time someone calls you out.