Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

Ok, so shouldn't Harry have security too?

Harry had security from birth until he quit the BRF and moved to the U.S. "to become financially independent." The BRF provided security to Harry and Meghan as long as they were working (or semi-working) royals. If they choose to quit the royal family and move to California, as is their right, it's the BRF's right not to continue funding their security. And their responsibility, too, since that security detail is funded by British taxpayers. They don't get it both ways, which seems to be their problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

Don’t agree that it was fair treatment. As we have seen the BRF will pull negative stories for Kate and Andrew when they feel like it. Meghan was a poor fit and unprotected. Also Meghan was a poor fit because she has a very American view of merit and hard work and positive enthusiasm being rewarded. She’s the only one out of the Cambridges and Sussexes that has ever had a real, can actually pay the bills without parental money job. Kate’s mom is basically a British Kris Jenner who groomed her daughters to marry the highest status man they could.

Don’t agree that Meghan should have expected the BRF’s protection in that way when she basically started making trouble immediately. That’s referring to the reports of being difficult with staff, wedding planning, and regular refusals to comply with royal norms and codes of behavior. I don’t agree with their defense of Andrew, but he’s the Queen’s son and she has a maternal soft spot for him, so that’s why they do it. And Kate dealt with all kinds of unflattering stories for many years, none of which were batted down by the BRF. If they do it now, it’s because she’s earned the goodwill for it by being a pleasant family member and good employee. The BRF was obviously willing to give her some concessions at the beginning, like having Charles walk her down the aisle and allowing her to do engagements with other family members before the wedding.

Yes, obviously Meghan is a poor fit for that reason. The BRF is about as diametrically opposed to a meritocracy as you can get. I don’t think that’s a secret or particularly difficult to understand, so if she didn’t like it, she shouldn’t have married in. She chose to for her own reasons, one of which was almost certainly to raise her public profile. There have been many stories and reports from her former associates that she’s highly ambitious and had been looking for a well-connected spouse (and it’s pretty clear based on the fact that she uses her title at every opportunity, despite her public separation and grievances with the BRF that she’s very happy with it), so calling the Middletons gold/status diggers seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

These are all unsubstantiated rumors, no?

Yes. The British parliament already wrote in support of Meghan indicating that the news coverage of her was racist, colonial and bullying, and yet, people like PP cannot let it go. They would rather cling to racist propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

The BRF made a fundamental mistake in treating Harry, Meghan, and Archie's security needs according to the same status-driven formula they use for the rest of the family. There are a lot of racist, xenophobic nutters out there. There has been an inordinate amount of vitriol leveled at Meghan from the time their relationship became public, hence the unprecedented statements by Harry (and William, in support, IIRC) at the time. The idea that Zara's children have the same risk as Archie is laughable. This doesn't make the BRF racist, but it shows them clueless at best, perhaps even callously so, in their rigidity.

It's ironic how this family keeps making the same mistakes generation after generation.

H&M had security as long as they lived in the UK and were working royals. If your argument is that they left the UK to earn money to pay for their son's security because the BRF refused to fund it, then that was a ham-handed overreaction on their part. Archie is a baby and presumably will be with his parents (and their security) 95% of the time for several years. And (in the UK), he lived in a compound around which there's already a security perimeter, was driven around by his parents' PPOs, and was with either his parents or trusted staff 100% of the time.

If they had monitored the situation and actually received threats or had reasons to be concerned about his safety later on, then they could have raised the topic at a later date, like when Archie was getting ready to start school. It seems unlikely that Charles literally wants his grandson dead, and he may well have reconsidered if they had credible information that Archie wasn't safe without his own security detail. And if he and Meghan had a difference of opinion with the decision-makers on this issue, Harry has a $17MM inheritance that he could have dipped into. Presumably augmenting their security team on his own dime would cost less than a mansion in Montecito.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your post is perfect. It’s also IMO dead on regarding facts and motivations - I don’t see what’s refutable here. But if one is not a mature adult, one can’t accept what you’ve laid out so clearly and convincingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

The BRF made a fundamental mistake in treating Harry, Meghan, and Archie's security needs according to the same status-driven formula they use for the rest of the family. There are a lot of racist, xenophobic nutters out there. There has been an inordinate amount of vitriol leveled at Meghan from the time their relationship became public, hence the unprecedented statements by Harry (and William, in support, IIRC) at the time. The idea that Zara's children have the same risk as Archie is laughable. This doesn't make the BRF racist, but it shows them clueless at best, perhaps even callously so, in their rigidity.

It's ironic how this family keeps making the same mistakes generation after generation.

Yep. I don't recall Zara or her rugby player husband getting anthrax mailed to them. Or stalked in private appearances with women threatening to tear off her belly. The palace was well aware of all the threats. Including the one serious enough that a man got prison time for saying he would end Harry's life.

Most people don't even know who Zara is because Anne didn't raise her at Windsor with the rest of her siblings' kids and didn't have them trotted out for public events let alone international tours.

And they aren't the children of a beloved and glamorous princess tragically killed in the prime of her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your post is perfect. It’s also IMO dead on regarding facts and motivations - I don’t see what’s refutable here. But if one is not a mature adult, one can’t accept what you’ve laid out so clearly and convincingly.

Arguments are so compelling when you've already made up your mind!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your post is perfect. It’s also IMO dead on regarding facts and motivations - I don’t see what’s refutable here. But if one is not a mature adult, one can’t accept what you’ve laid out so clearly and convincingly.

Arguments are so compelling when you've already made up your mind!

Yes, you’ve described yourself well.

[Anonymous]

I love how this falls under the Entertainment forum. It certainly is entertaining

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

The BRF made a fundamental mistake in treating Harry, Meghan, and Archie's security needs according to the same status-driven formula they use for the rest of the family. There are a lot of racist, xenophobic nutters out there. There has been an inordinate amount of vitriol leveled at Meghan from the time their relationship became public, hence the unprecedented statements by Harry (and William, in support, IIRC) at the time. The idea that Zara's children have the same risk as Archie is laughable. This doesn't make the BRF racist, but it shows them clueless at best, perhaps even callously so, in their rigidity.

It's ironic how this family keeps making the same mistakes generation after generation.

I agree with this because he is way higher profile than any of Elizabeth’s kids. They forced him to
walk behind his mother’s body when it suited them. This is not a war worth fighting. They should
give the kids titles and security and move on and not invite them to things if they want to keep
him out but god protest the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

The BRF made a fundamental mistake in treating Harry, Meghan, and Archie's security needs according to the same status-driven formula they use for the rest of the family. There are a lot of racist, xenophobic nutters out there. There has been an inordinate amount of vitriol leveled at Meghan from the time their relationship became public, hence the unprecedented statements by Harry (and William, in support, IIRC) at the time. The idea that Zara's children have the same risk as Archie is laughable. This doesn't make the BRF racist, but it shows them clueless at best, perhaps even callously so, in their rigidity.

It's ironic how this family keeps making the same mistakes generation after generation.

I agree with this because he is way higher profile than any of Elizabeth’s kids. They forced him to
walk behind his mother’s body when it suited them. This is not a war worth fighting. They should
give the kids titles and security and move on and not invite them to things if they want to keep
him out but god protest the kids.

Harry and Meghan can pay for their own security now. Why do they want handout and titles for their kids from such a horrible racist institution anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your post is perfect. It’s also IMO dead on regarding facts and motivations - I don’t see what’s refutable here. But if one is not a mature adult, one can’t accept what you’ve laid out so clearly and convincingly.

Arguments are so compelling when you've already made up your mind!

Yes, you’ve described yourself well.

Nope, none of those posts were mine. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your post is perfect. It’s also IMO dead on regarding facts and motivations - I don’t see what’s refutable here. But if one is not a mature adult, one can’t accept what you’ve laid out so clearly and convincingly.

Arguments are so compelling when you've already made up your mind!

Yes, you’ve described yourself well.

Nope, none of those posts were mine. Sorry.

Yes, dear, that’s abundantly clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

The BRF made a fundamental mistake in treating Harry, Meghan, and Archie's security needs according to the same status-driven formula they use for the rest of the family. There are a lot of racist, xenophobic nutters out there. There has been an inordinate amount of vitriol leveled at Meghan from the time their relationship became public, hence the unprecedented statements by Harry (and William, in support, IIRC) at the time. The idea that Zara's children have the same risk as Archie is laughable. This doesn't make the BRF racist, but it shows them clueless at best, perhaps even callously so, in their rigidity.

It's ironic how this family keeps making the same mistakes generation after generation.

I agree with this because he is way higher profile than any of Elizabeth’s kids. They forced him to
walk behind his mother’s body when it suited them. This is not a war worth fighting. They should
give the kids titles and security and move on and not invite them to things if they want to keep
him out but god protest the kids.

Harry and Meghan can pay for their own security now. Why do they want handout and titles for their kids from such a horrible racist institution anyway?

I don't think Meghan planned for them to stay within the RF. However, her goal was always to snare Harry to obtain all those perks and status in life. He's merely a stepping stone. Somehow she thought she was smarter than the RF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

DP. Harry is arguably the royal who's life is most imminently in danger, minus perhaps Andrew, at this time. And that is in great part BECAUSE of the british media and BRF (and yes also in large part because of their own behavior). At the time, though, H&M were not inviting attention and the BRF basically pointed a loaded gun at them by leaking their location and stripping security.

IMO this is the worst thing they have been accused of. Not because Harry should or should not have taken over his own security, plenty of arguments to be made in support of that for sure, but to do it with no notice, not allow them time to stand up their own team with adequate background checks AND to expose their location, that was just asking for a Diana 2.0 situation to happen and they're frankly lucky it didn't.

Do you have a citation for this? I googled and couldn’t find support for the story that the BRF simultaneously leaked their location and pulled their security. What I did find was an article saying that Canada provided them taxpayer-funded security starting in November 2020 and announced in January 2020 that they would continue to do so until H&M’s effective date of resignation from the BRF (March 31, 2020). That would have been two full months of notice to make other arrangements, but H&M moved to California in advance of that date so it was moot. Even if Harry’s life is the most endangered (I disagree), that seems like plenty of time to get an alternate team in place.

Do you have a citation for the bolded? There is not much hard info on this, just accounts in the media and from H&M which is why I said this is the worst thing they have been accused of. I also think there is perhaps a semantics issue there. Canada may have said THEY would stop paying for their security on March 31 and that may have been entirely expected, but that is not the same as Charles informing them that the BRF at large was withdrawing their security details.

Here is the daily mail saying not just that they are in canada, but literally what HOUSE they were in: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7846385/David-Foster-arranged-Harry-Meghans-stay-mystery-millionaires-Canadian-mansion.html

Here's another article from January, no mention of no security being part of the arrangement as Harry returns to Canada: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51185628

Here is how Harry describes finding out: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/tyler-perry-net-worth-meghan-harry-b1814271.html . He references being alarmed that the border was going to close soon. The canadian border closed on March 21, but I feel like it would have been a semi reasonable fear by perhaps mid February from someone like Harry who would have had some insider info on the severity of the pandemic and the predictions, but it is also reasonable that this was more like early March.

“While we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told, short notice, that security was going to be removed,” he recalled, adding that, because of tabloids, his and his wife’s exact location was known. “So suddenly it dawned on me: ‘Hang on, the borders could be closed, we’re going to have our security removed, who knows how long lockdown is going to be, the world knows where we are, it’s not safe, it’s not secure, we probably need to get out of here.”

He repeats a similar story in a different interview: https://etcanada.com/news/755131/prince-harry-meghan-markle-explain-how-tyler-perry-helped-after-security-was-stripped-by-royal-family/

“While we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told, short notice, that security was going to be removed,” the Duke of Sussex recalled. “At this point, everyone knew, thanks to the Daily Mail, our exact location.”

“So suddenly it dawned on me, ‘Hang on, the borders could be closed, we’re going to have our security removed, who knows how long lockdown is going to be, the world knows where we are, it’s not safe, it’s not secure, we probably need to get out of here,’” Harry said.

To me, if I am Harry and Meghan, I think 1-2 months is actually a VERY tight turn around for establishing their own security, and not because of money. They are VERY famous people and would need people with serious background checks to be verified before being put on their team. And Harry, for better or worse, had never had to do anything like this before, and so would not be familiar with how to go about setting up a security team like this (which I imagine is no small endeavor). There would be no time for cross training between the groups, it would be a scramble.

And again, I'm not saying they shouldn't have taken on their own security expenses, but if it was my kid and I knew for a fact that they were someone of great international interest who's lives would be endangered, I would go to great lengths to ensure the transfer of security was done the right way and not in any rushed or haphazard way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just stunned that Prince Charles and Prince William would just dump Harry. They did this before Harry left when he was told that his kids would have no title or protection. This is crazy. I think they wanted him to just fade away and they are now annoyed that he is not fading away. He has more of his mom in him then anyone realized. I do think he and Megan need to not be so political because that turns away half your potential supporters. Be humanitarians and make some coin also and force the BRF to have to deal with you.

Why is it crazy that his kids wouldn't have titles or personal security for life? Many of the Queen's grandchildren don't, and are doing just fine. Beatrice and Eugenie, for example, were stripped of their taxpayer-funded security many years ago, and live relatively normal lives in which they work full-time jobs and support themselves. The Queen's other grandchildren don't have titles and have never had security.

The only great-grandchildren of the Queen that have security are the Cambridge kids, because they're the children of a future monarch. The fundamental design of the BRF means that William and Harry have different status and are, correspondingly, entitled to different benefits from the BRF.

DP. Harry is arguably the royal who's life is most imminently in danger, minus perhaps Andrew, at this time. And that is in great part BECAUSE of the british media and BRF (and yes also in large part because of their own behavior). At the time, though, H&M were not inviting attention and the BRF basically pointed a loaded gun at them by leaking their location and stripping security.

IMO this is the worst thing they have been accused of. Not because Harry should or should not have taken over his own security, plenty of arguments to be made in support of that for sure, but to do it with no notice, not allow them time to stand up their own team with adequate background checks AND to expose their location, that was just asking for a Diana 2.0 situation to happen and they're frankly lucky it didn't.

Do you have a citation for this? I googled and couldn’t find support for the story that the BRF simultaneously leaked their location and pulled their security. What I did find was an article saying that Canada provided them taxpayer-funded security starting in November 2020 and announced in January 2020 that they would continue to do so until H&M’s effective date of resignation from the BRF (March 31, 2020). That would have been two full months of notice to make other arrangements, but H&M moved to California in advance of that date so it was moot. Even if Harry’s life is the most endangered (I disagree), that seems like plenty of time to get an alternate team in place.

Do you have a citation for the bolded? There is not much hard info on this, just accounts in the media and from H&M which is why I said this is the worst thing they have been accused of. I also think there is perhaps a semantics issue there. Canada may have said THEY would stop paying for their security on March 31 and that may have been entirely expected, but that is not the same as Charles informing them that the BRF at large was withdrawing their security details.

Here is the daily mail saying not just that they are in canada, but literally what HOUSE they were in: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7846385/David-Foster-arranged-Harry-Meghans-stay-mystery-millionaires-Canadian-mansion.html

Here's another article from January, no mention of no security being part of the arrangement as Harry returns to Canada: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51185628

Here is how Harry describes finding out: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/tyler-perry-net-worth-meghan-harry-b1814271.html . He references being alarmed that the border was going to close soon. The canadian border closed on March 21, but I feel like it would have been a semi reasonable fear by perhaps mid February from someone like Harry who would have had some insider info on the severity of the pandemic and the predictions, but it is also reasonable that this was more like early March.

“While we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told, short notice, that security was going to be removed,” he recalled, adding that, because of tabloids, his and his wife’s exact location was known. “So suddenly it dawned on me: ‘Hang on, the borders could be closed, we’re going to have our security removed, who knows how long lockdown is going to be, the world knows where we are, it’s not safe, it’s not secure, we probably need to get out of here.”

He repeats a similar story in a different interview: https://etcanada.com/news/755131/prince-harry-meghan-markle-explain-how-tyler-perry-helped-after-security-was-stripped-by-royal-family/

“While we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told, short notice, that security was going to be removed,” the Duke of Sussex recalled. “At this point, everyone knew, thanks to the Daily Mail, our exact location.”

“So suddenly it dawned on me, ‘Hang on, the borders could be closed, we’re going to have our security removed, who knows how long lockdown is going to be, the world knows where we are, it’s not safe, it’s not secure, we probably need to get out of here,’” Harry said.

To me, if I am Harry and Meghan, I think 1-2 months is actually a VERY tight turn around for establishing their own security, and not because of money. They are VERY famous people and would need people with serious background checks to be verified before being put on their team. And Harry, for better or worse, had never had to do anything like this before, and so would not be familiar with how to go about setting up a security team like this (which I imagine is no small endeavor). There would be no time for cross training between the groups, it would be a scramble.

And again, I'm not saying they shouldn't have taken on their own security expenses, but if it was my kid and I knew for a fact that they were someone of great international interest who's lives would be endangered, I would go to great lengths to ensure the transfer of security was done the right way and not in any rushed or haphazard way.

No one forced the Sussexes to leave before they had private security arrangements in place. Were they going to be imprisoned in the Tower? It’s interesting how you cast the blame on everyone else.