Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Beatrice and Eugenie are the Queen’s grandchildren, just like William and Harry. Does Eugenie’s newborn have his own security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Beatrice and Eugenie are the Queen’s grandchildren, just like William and Harry. Does Eugenie’s newborn have his own security?

William and Harry are the only children of the future King. By precedent both of their children should be protected - especially as the Sussex’s were senior royals. How are you going to protect the parents and not their newborn???

[Anonymous]

None of the queens other grandchildren or great grandchildren have full time security, apart from William and his family because they are the heirs.

Same with the titles, great grandchildren of the monarch don’t get titles, unless they are the children of the heir.

This has all been explained 1000 times. Meghan wanted the Cambridge treatment, not the Zara/Peter/Eugenie/Beatrice treatment they were entitled too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Beatrice and Eugenie are the Queen’s grandchildren, just like William and Harry. Does Eugenie’s newborn have his own security?

William and Harry are the only children of the future King. By precedent both of their children should be protected - especially as the Sussex’s were senior royals. How are you going to protect the parents and not their newborn???

This isn’t how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of the queens other grandchildren or great grandchildren have full time security, apart from William and his family because they are the heirs.

Same with the titles, great grandchildren of the monarch don’t get titles, unless they are the children of the heir.

This has all been explained 1000 times. Meghan wanted the Cambridge treatment, not the Zara/Peter/Eugenie/Beatrice treatment they were entitled too.

Zara/Peter/Eugenie/Beatrice are not working royals, let alone Senior Royals, and were not being sent around by the BRF as representatives. In less than a year Meghan and Harry were sent to 10 countries on behalf of the Queen.

It’s shortsightedness and spiteful. What exactly was the Royal family thinking would happen the next time the Sussex’s were asked to go on tour and they had to leave their 1 yr old behind with no security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Beatrice and Eugenie are the Queen’s grandchildren, just like William and Harry. Does Eugenie’s newborn have his own security?

William and Harry are the only children of the future King. By precedent both of their children should be protected - especially as the Sussex’s were senior royals. How are you going to protect the parents and not their newborn???

Oh please. M and H chose to leave royal public life and serving the tax payers who were footing the bill for their expenses. M is just too stupid to think things through and thought she could make ridiculous demands and she lost. She’s a dumb ass, plain and simple. She can now go back to her lucrative (lol) acting career to lay for her kid. This is not about racism, not buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of the queens other grandchildren or great grandchildren have full time security, apart from William and his family because they are the heirs.

Same with the titles, great grandchildren of the monarch don’t get titles, unless they are the children of the heir.

This has all been explained 1000 times. Meghan wanted the Cambridge treatment, not the Zara/Peter/Eugenie/Beatrice treatment they were entitled too.

Zara/Peter/Eugenie/Beatrice are not working royals, let alone Senior Royals, and were not being sent around by the BRF as representatives. In less than a year Meghan and Harry were sent to 10 countries on behalf of the Queen.

It’s shortsightedness and spiteful. What exactly was the Royal family thinking would happen the next time the Sussex’s were asked to go on tour and they had to leave their 1 yr old behind with no security?

I’m sure it could have been worked out. That isn’t the reason they left - they are just saying that now because people weren’t sympathetic enough to “we weren’t happy.”

The title though was 100% NOT taken from him. Everyone who remotely understands protocol understood he was never getting a title until Charles was king and THEN he would be the grandchild of the monarch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that your way of declaring 'alternative facts'?

I'm seriously asking. Because Archie was born in the United Kingdom and taken home to Windsor Castle grounds. He was a newborn stripped of security.

Which makes me think back to the time period from May 2019 - November 2019 when Meghan didn't appear in public with her baby unless they were out of the country. She was afraid. Going on a foreign tour guaranteed high-level royal protection officers for her child. But in his own country - he was left defenseless.

Its even more odious that despite Charles & Andrew's acrimonious relationship the security for his daughters was never stripped until they reached the age of 18.

Beatrice and Eugenie are the Queen’s grandchildren, just like William and Harry. Does Eugenie’s newborn have his own security?

William and Harry are the only children of the future King. By precedent both of their children should be protected - especially as the Sussex’s were senior royals. How are you going to protect the parents and not their newborn???

Is the newborn carrying out events all by himself?

[Anonymous]

W/r/t Louis bday Meg pap stroll:
“It's the same few photographers over and over again, and they're catching her in places that it doesn't make sense for her to be. She lives in Montecito but she was "taking Archie to school" 100 miles away in LA? Then last year, the same photog who staged the pics of her dad right before the wedding just happened to catch H&M walking their dogs in LA, miles away from they were living in Beverly Hills at the time? None of it adds up. This is ALL her doing, and she relies on the stupidity of her "fans" to make it plausible.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:W/r/t Louis bday Meg pap stroll:
“It's the same few photographers over and over again, and they're catching her in places that it doesn't make sense for her to be. She lives in Montecito but she was "taking Archie to school" 100 miles away in LA? Then last year, the same photog who staged the pics of her dad right before the wedding just happened to catch H&M walking their dogs in LA, miles away from they were living in Beverly Hills at the time? None of it adds up. This is ALL her doing, and she relies on the stupidity of her "fans" to make it plausible.”

And who isn’t she suing them for taking Archie’s picture and publishing it? PrIvAcy, right??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

Charles’ “real job” consists of his royal duties. That was Harry’s real job too before he left. He has no one to blame but himself for believing that he would or should continue to get the $$$ and benefits of the job without actually doing the job. That’s not how jobs work.

zWell that's not true. People leave and retire from jobs everyday and walk away with pensions, health care, lifetime insurance, severance packages, you name it. Harry has been working for the BRF since birth, plus two tours in Afghanistan, so he put in 30plus years of service.

Where do you live that all jobs have pensions and benefits even after you quit? Wouldn’t it be nice for workers if that were true? Sadly it’s not.

It works for me. Sorry you have shitty employment perks.

You’re not courageous enough to say those words verbatim to PP’s face.

Haha. I guarantee with 100% certainty, I would indeed. But your dare is such childish fodder, I brush it away on this anonymous internet thread.

[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.

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.

That is bull. You have people on DCUM claiming they cannot retire and live on less than $10million, and yet they don’t have to worry about hiring security, body guards, college expenses and a new home. Harry reportedly inherited $10 million and Meghan net worth prior to marriage reportedly $5 million. If DCUM cannot do it on $10million with a paid off house and college expenses, how in the hell can they do it, paying for security due to threats from nut jobs like people in this thread.

[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.

How? They still had to pay for their own security in Canada. Their own living expenses. They would have still required earning an income whether it was Canada or the USA. And why are you begrudging them from wanting to work and earn their keep?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are there no tony privates in Canada? Do you think they would have attended the equivalent public MOCO or FX school in Canada. No, Archie will attend a school equivalent to Sidwell or Maret.

[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.

How? They still had to pay for their own security in Canada. Their own living expenses. They would have still required earning an income whether it was Canada or the USA. And why are you begrudging them from wanting to work and earn their keep?

DP. Then they should go ahead and do that. Stop whining about daddy cutting them off. Stop whining about how everyone was mean to them. These two are insanely wealthy and privileged but they can’t stop whining about how everyone has victimized them.

Most grown adults have to pay for their own living expenses. But we don’t cry about it constantly.