Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[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:

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.

You can think what you like. The Sussexes are just a pair of entitled whiners. All that money in the world and yet they complain left and right. The BRF won’t miss them.

[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.

Exactly, so do it and shut up about everything already. Stop with all the complaints and sob stories.

This is such a stupid statement and ver un-American. If your employer treated you unfairly, I guess you would just shut up already and not make a complaint(s). I call bullshit. Harry and Meghan were effectively employees of the BRF and by extension The Firm. The have every right to voice their complaint, as I imagine you would with your complaint before the EEOC.

The complaints exist only in their own minds.

That tired statement is used by most defense attorneys shrilling for the employers in employment cases. Find something original.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Where are you getting this idea? They wanted to "work" by making commercial deals as senior royals, not work by doing the actual work that the BRF expects from a secondary (not in direct line to the throne) royal - such as visiting charities, maintaining patronages (maybe not the top-tier or most glamorous ones, but they did make an effort to allow Meghan to do things she found interesting, such as her cookbook project and the fashion line benefitting women returning to the workforce), opening hospitals, etc.

The BRF did slap down the idea that they could maintain senior royal status while simultaneously exploiting their connection to the BRF for profit, such as by doing the Netflix and Spotify deals that they signed onto within the last year. That's not because they're mean, it's because that kind of stuff makes the family look shady to the public. This really upset H&M because they saw themselves as the popular stars of the family, and wanted to develop a source of income that wasn't limited by what the BRF/Charles chose to give them. Which is, again, fine, but to then complain that the BRF withdrew their royal privileges after they chose to walk away to make money is pretty ridiculous.

Taxpayer funded security is for working members of the BRF, which H&M are not, and which Archie will not be. There is zero reason why Archie should be entitled to security if he's not a working royal, and it's better not to instill that expectation from the beginning than to take it away after the beneficiary is used to it. In the UK, Archie would generally have been accompanied by his parents' PPOs, so it's not like he'd have been some helpless newborn surrounded by wolves. Most of the Queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren, with the exception of the Cambridge children (because they're the children of the future king), don't have personal security. If you start down that path, there's nowhere to cut it off.

[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.

Liar. The reporter specifically asked her and her response was, "I am glad you asked . . . .

[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.

Exactly, so do it and shut up about everything already. Stop with all the complaints and sob stories.

This is such a stupid statement and ver un-American. If your employer treated you unfairly, I guess you would just shut up already and not make a complaint(s). I call bullshit. Harry and Meghan were effectively employees of the BRF and by extension The Firm. The have every right to voice their complaint, as I imagine you would with your complaint before the EEOC.

The complaints exist only in their own minds.

That tired statement is used by most defense attorneys shrilling for the employers in employment cases. Find something original.

Their complaints boil down to: "We quit our jobs and are angry that our former employer isn't paying us anymore," so the PP's statement is totally accurate. If this were an EEOC proceeding, they'd lose.

[Anonymous]

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.

Harry is a grown man. He went and badmouthed his father on international TV. I'm not sure what you'd expect from Charles at that point. Not to mention he's lost a father and is entitled to grieve in whatever way he wants. Now Harry wants his binky?

[Anonymous]

“Thank you for asking because not many people have asked if I’m ok.” That’s the full quote. It could sound whiny to some people.

[Anonymous]

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.

You don't get it. Monarchy is not an egalitarian, inclusive enterprise. There is #1, and then there is everyone else, and there is no equality among them, and none is expected. Harry knows that very well but he's been indulged too long. It's a bit much to milk his mother's death twenty years later. Normal people recover by now.

[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.

Exactly, so do it and shut up about everything already. Stop with all the complaints and sob stories.

This is such a stupid statement and ver un-American. If your employer treated you unfairly, I guess you would just shut up already and not make a complaint(s). I call bullshit. Harry and Meghan were effectively employees of the BRF and by extension The Firm. The have every right to voice their complaint, as I imagine you would with your complaint before the EEOC.

The complaints exist only in their own minds.

That tired statement is used by most defense attorneys shrilling for the employers in employment cases. Find something original.

Why don’t you take yiir own advice about finding something original instead of rehashing your same old talking points?

[Anonymous]

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.

You don't get it. Monarchy is not an egalitarian, inclusive enterprise. There is #1, and then there is everyone else, and there is no equality among them, and none is expected. Harry knows that very well but he's been indulged too long. It's a bit much to milk his mother's death twenty years later. Normal people recover by now.

People don't ever really get over losing a mother so young and there's no timeline for "normal grieving". Yet he's had a good military career and is trying to help others with Invictus and his other foundations. Don't be a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Thank you for asking because not many people have asked if I’m ok.” That’s the full quote. It could sound whiny to some people.

Not to forget the context, which was a tour of South Africa where they were interacting and highlighting people who have faced significant adversity (financial and otherwise). Of course everyone has problems, and money doesn’t insulate you, but MM is one of the most privileged women in the world. Read the room.

[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.

Harry is a grown man. He went and badmouthed his father on international TV. I'm not sure what you'd expect from Charles at that point. Not to mention he's lost a father and is entitled to grieve in whatever way he wants. Now Harry wants his binky?

What goes around comes around. Charles used a young son to make himself look better by alleging his son is a druggie. Who did Harry learn it from?

[Anonymous]

I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That’s not what they want. They want adulation and global celebrity humanitarian status, so they’re trying to keep themselves relevant. Unfortunately the only thing they have to sell is their litany of grievances against the BRF, which isn’t the best product given their goals. But they’re working with what they have.

[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.

Not really. Absolutely nothing would prevent them from buying the domains for one name —or multiple potential names — prior to the birth. They don’t have to use them, particularly if the goal is to prevent other people from using them.