Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

They are making more than enough to cover their security and all. The British tax payers should be very happy now. Why are they still butt hurt and could not let go of these two? They don't even live in Britain anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They are making more than enough to cover their security and all. The British tax payers should be very happy now. Why are they still butt hurt and could not let go of these two? They don't even live in Britain anymore.

This is a really groundbreaking observation. Way to bring new content and perspective to a 1000+ page discussion

[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.

I’m the PP. This is the article I’m referring to (there are also some Canadian sources saying the same thing) - but I did get the date wrong because I was skimming. It’s from February 27, 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835.amp

This is the date of the public announcement; I would imagine that H&M were privately notified at some time in advance. Assuming that they found out on February 27 like the rest of us, however, they still had one month to get a team in place. I disagree with you that one month isn’t sufficient; they have access to resources that we don’t and there are security staffing agencies for “VIPs” that do this stuff every day. Plus, if we’re being honest, they’re connected enough that they could have left even after the border closed. So the panic that Harry describes in the interviews you quoted rings a little hollow to me. I’m sure they were concerned about their pending loss of official security, but it seems like the real bitterness is coming from the fact that the BRF refused to pay for it.

Finally, my understanding is the BRF pulled security after H&M quit. In January, they released a manifesto of their demands on the Archewell website, and shortly after that (if my recollection is correct), Harry returned to the UK for a status meeting with his family and ironed out the deal to leave, with an effective date of March 31. While we can’t know for sure, I imagine he was told then that BRF security would be pulled (we don’t know with what notice, but they also had Canadian security at that time). So if he was so concerned about the issue, he had all the notice he could have reasonably been given to begin making alternative arrangements. I don’t think the BRF owed him more than that (indefinite security) until he made arrangements at his leisure. You quit, you lose the perks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m the PP. This is the article I’m referring to (there are also some Canadian sources saying the same thing) - but I did get the date wrong because I was skimming. It’s from February 27, 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835.amp

This is the date of the public announcement; I would imagine that H&M were privately notified at some time in advance. Assuming that they found out on February 27 like the rest of us, however, they still had one month to get a team in place. I disagree with you that one month isn’t sufficient; they have access to resources that we don’t and there are security staffing agencies for “VIPs” that do this stuff every day. Plus, if we’re being honest, they’re connected enough that they could have left even after the border closed. So the panic that Harry describes in the interviews you quoted rings a little hollow to me. I’m sure they were concerned about their pending loss of official security, but it seems like the real bitterness is coming from the fact that the BRF refused to pay for it.

Finally, my understanding is the BRF pulled security after H&M quit. In January, they released a manifesto of their demands on the Archewell website, and shortly after that (if my recollection is correct), Harry returned to the UK for a status meeting with his family and ironed out the deal to leave, with an effective date of March 31. While we can’t know for sure, I imagine he was told then that BRF security would be pulled (we don’t know with what notice, but they also had Canadian security at that time). So if he was so concerned about the issue, he had all the notice he could have reasonably been given to begin making alternative arrangements. I don’t think the BRF owed him more than that (indefinite security) until he made arrangements at his leisure. You quit, you lose the perks.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m the PP. This is the article I’m referring to (there are also some Canadian sources saying the same thing) - but I did get the date wrong because I was skimming. It’s from February 27, 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835.amp

This is the date of the public announcement; I would imagine that H&M were privately notified at some time in advance. Assuming that they found out on February 27 like the rest of us, however, they still had one month to get a team in place. I disagree with you that one month isn’t sufficient; they have access to resources that we don’t and there are security staffing agencies for “VIPs” that do this stuff every day. Plus, if we’re being honest, they’re connected enough that they could have left even after the border closed. So the panic that Harry describes in the interviews you quoted rings a little hollow to me. I’m sure they were concerned about their pending loss of official security, but it seems like the real bitterness is coming from the fact that the BRF refused to pay for it.

Finally, my understanding is the BRF pulled security after H&M quit. In January, they released a manifesto of their demands on the Archewell website, and shortly after that (if my recollection is correct), Harry returned to the UK for a status meeting with his family and ironed out the deal to leave, with an effective date of March 31. While we can’t know for sure, I imagine he was told then that BRF security would be pulled (we don’t know with what notice, but they also had Canadian security at that time). So if he was so concerned about the issue, he had all the notice he could have reasonably been given to begin making alternative arrangements. I don’t think the BRF owed him more than that (indefinite security) until he made arrangements at his leisure. You quit, you lose the perks.

PP here. I disagree based on the reasoning in my post but see this as a perfectly reasonable difference in opinion unlike most of what is discussed in this thread. Both positions seem plausible.

[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.

YES to everything you said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m the PP. This is the article I’m referring to (there are also some Canadian sources saying the same thing) - but I did get the date wrong because I was skimming. It’s from February 27, 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835.amp

This is the date of the public announcement; I would imagine that H&M were privately notified at some time in advance. Assuming that they found out on February 27 like the rest of us, however, they still had one month to get a team in place. I disagree with you that one month isn’t sufficient; they have access to resources that we don’t and there are security staffing agencies for “VIPs” that do this stuff every day. Plus, if we’re being honest, they’re connected enough that they could have left even after the border closed. So the panic that Harry describes in the interviews you quoted rings a little hollow to me. I’m sure they were concerned about their pending loss of official security, but it seems like the real bitterness is coming from the fact that the BRF refused to pay for it.

Finally, my understanding is the BRF pulled security after H&M quit. In January, they released a manifesto of their demands on the Archewell website, and shortly after that (if my recollection is correct), Harry returned to the UK for a status meeting with his family and ironed out the deal to leave, with an effective date of March 31. While we can’t know for sure, I imagine he was told then that BRF security would be pulled (we don’t know with what notice, but they also had Canadian security at that time). So if he was so concerned about the issue, he had all the notice he could have reasonably been given to begin making alternative arrangements. I don’t think the BRF owed him more than that (indefinite security) until he made arrangements at his leisure. You quit, you lose the perks.

+1

I agree from a work perspective. But from Charles perspective your son has married someone you don’t like or you’ve grown to dislike and you have a ton of personal wealth and you make the decision to cut their security? Just doesn’t make sense from a parent perspective. Yes, he’s an adult but also I would never decline to protect one of my children’s physical safety if I had the ability to do so.

[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.

?

But they did do the charitable work when they were royals and have continued to be involved in some of the patronages that were stripped. There is really no indication that they wouldn’t have done so in a half in half out situation.

[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?

Are you dense? The narrative will always be that Charles made changes to prevent his only mixed raced grandchildren from having titles. It’s not even about the Sussex’s it’s a strategic mistake. Even if the reason is he doesn’t like them or he wants to streamline the monarchy (another mistake because streamlining means more attention on Charles and Camilla who will always be disliked by a subset of people) it looks very bad. Especially when you consider that the Commonwealth countries are more diverse and contribute money to maintain their affiliation.

[Anonymous]

You can be mixed race and also unlikeable. Not everyone from the Commonwealth countries is a huge fan of this couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m the PP. This is the article I’m referring to (there are also some Canadian sources saying the same thing) - but I did get the date wrong because I was skimming. It’s from February 27, 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835.amp

This is the date of the public announcement; I would imagine that H&M were privately notified at some time in advance. Assuming that they found out on February 27 like the rest of us, however, they still had one month to get a team in place. I disagree with you that one month isn’t sufficient; they have access to resources that we don’t and there are security staffing agencies for “VIPs” that do this stuff every day. Plus, if we’re being honest, they’re connected enough that they could have left even after the border closed. So the panic that Harry describes in the interviews you quoted rings a little hollow to me. I’m sure they were concerned about their pending loss of official security, but it seems like the real bitterness is coming from the fact that the BRF refused to pay for it.

Finally, my understanding is the BRF pulled security after H&M quit. In January, they released a manifesto of their demands on the Archewell website, and shortly after that (if my recollection is correct), Harry returned to the UK for a status meeting with his family and ironed out the deal to leave, with an effective date of March 31. While we can’t know for sure, I imagine he was told then that BRF security would be pulled (we don’t know with what notice, but they also had Canadian security at that time). So if he was so concerned about the issue, he had all the notice he could have reasonably been given to begin making alternative arrangements. I don’t think the BRF owed him more than that (indefinite security) until he made arrangements at his leisure. You quit, you lose the perks.

+1

I agree from a work perspective. But from Charles perspective your son has married someone you don’t like or you’ve grown to dislike and you have a ton of personal wealth and you make the decision to cut their security? Just doesn’t make sense from a parent perspective. Yes, he’s an adult but also I would never decline to protect one of my children’s physical safety if I had the ability to do so.

Security is not provided for personally though- through private expenses.

It is done through the Metropolitan Police and Scotland yard for the Monarchy, for large family units, not individuals..... Meg probably expected that it was done on an individual basis, but its not, so that whole line of reasoning breaks down.

[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.

?

But they did do the charitable work when they were royals and have continued to be involved in some of the patronages that were stripped. There is really no indication that they wouldn’t have done so in a half in half out situation.

The half-in/half-out situation was what H&M wanted, because it essentially gave them the best of both worlds (the status and benefits, including funding and taxpayer-funded security, of being BRF members, but also the ability to make commercial deals at will to earn a personal fortune on the side). This was untenable given the nature of the BRF and its relationship to the British public, so the BRF vetoed it. Senior members of the BRF, who receive taxpayer funding, are expected to act as quasi-diplomats/humble public figures, not as global celebrities who seek fame and glamour in their own right. That's not to say they don't enjoy ridiculous luxury and perks, but part of the implicit deal is that they're not loud about it. And it would be damaging to the monarchy and the institution if two senior members, who are working royals, attempt to exploit their (hereditary) status for their own financial gain. So the question wasn't whether the arrangement was technically possible, it was whether the BRF would allow such an arrangement to exist.

H&M's half-in/half-out proposal was shut down, and they had a binary choice between (1) remaining full members of the BRF on the terms that they followed from 2018-2019, and (2) resigning as working/senior members of the BRF and striking out on their own to pursue commercial deals. They chose to do the latter. Apparently they failed to consider the (entirely foreseeable) consequence that their choice would mean they'd be cut off from the benefits of being senior royals, such as continued use of the HRH style and access to "Sussex Royal" branding (which they planned to monetize), taxpayer-funded security and additional lifestyle funding from Charles. They thought they'd quit, move to CA, and still get these things. The BRF said no, if you quit, you don't get these continued benefits, and you certainly don't get to directly use your "royal" status for profit.

To me, it's pretty clear that this is what enraged them (even though their story has repeatedly changed since November 2020 to make them appear more sympathetic each time), since they had already started marketing themselves commercially on the assumption that they'd have the cachet of being full royals. They had registered trademarks and websites under the Sussex Royal branding and had to hurriedly pivot to Archewell after they were told that they couldn't explicitly trade on being royalty. And of course, they were stripped of BRF security and funding, which they had to make up themselves. And they've been trying to get back at the family ever since.

[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.

?

But they did do the charitable work when they were royals and have continued to be involved in some of the patronages that were stripped. There is really no indication that they wouldn’t have done so in a half in half out situation.

The half-in/half-out situation was what H&M wanted, because it essentially gave them the best of both worlds (the status and benefits, including funding and taxpayer-funded security, of being BRF members, but also the ability to make commercial deals at will to earn a personal fortune on the side). This was untenable given the nature of the BRF and its relationship to the British public, so the BRF vetoed it. Senior members of the BRF, who receive taxpayer funding, are expected to act as quasi-diplomats/humble public figures, not as global celebrities who seek fame and glamour in their own right. That's not to say they don't enjoy ridiculous luxury and perks, but part of the implicit deal is that they're not loud about it. And it would be damaging to the monarchy and the institution if two senior members, who are working royals, attempt to exploit their (hereditary) status for their own financial gain. So the question wasn't whether the arrangement was technically possible, it was whether the BRF would allow such an arrangement to exist.

H&M's half-in/half-out proposal was shut down, and they had a binary choice between (1) remaining full members of the BRF on the terms that they followed from 2018-2019, and (2) resigning as working/senior members of the BRF and striking out on their own to pursue commercial deals. They chose to do the latter. Apparently they failed to consider the (entirely foreseeable) consequence that their choice would mean they'd be cut off from the benefits of being senior royals, such as continued use of the HRH style and access to "Sussex Royal" branding (which they planned to monetize), taxpayer-funded security and additional lifestyle funding from Charles. They thought they'd quit, move to CA, and still get these things. The BRF said no, if you quit, you don't get these continued benefits, and you certainly don't get to directly use your "royal" status for profit.

To me, it's pretty clear that this is what enraged them (even though their story has repeatedly changed since November 2020 to make them appear more sympathetic each time), since they had already started marketing themselves commercially on the assumption that they'd have the cachet of being full royals. They had registered trademarks and websites under the Sussex Royal branding and had to hurriedly pivot to Archewell after they were told that they couldn't explicitly trade on being royalty. And of course, they were stripped of BRF security and funding, which they had to make up themselves. And they've been trying to get back at the family ever since.

Yes, they are incredibly greedy. And will sell whatever gets them the most money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you dense? The narrative will always be that Charles made changes to prevent his only mixed raced grandchildren from having titles. It’s not even about the Sussex’s it’s a strategic mistake. Even if the reason is he doesn’t like them or he wants to streamline the monarchy (another mistake because streamlining means more attention on Charles and Camilla who will always be disliked by a subset of people) it looks very bad. Especially when you consider that the Commonwealth countries are more diverse and contribute money to maintain their affiliation.

The only dense ones are those like you who think the Sussexes can have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you dense? The narrative will always be that Charles made changes to prevent his only mixed raced grandchildren from having titles. It’s not even about the Sussex’s it’s a strategic mistake. Even if the reason is he doesn’t like them or he wants to streamline the monarchy (another mistake because streamlining means more attention on Charles and Camilla who will always be disliked by a subset of people) it looks very bad. Especially when you consider that the Commonwealth countries are more diverse and contribute money to maintain their affiliation.

That might be the narrative in the US (at least among Americans who have no idea how the BRF works, which is not all Americans), but it's not in the UK. The British public, which is obviously more familiar with the BRF, knows how titles work. There's a set of rules called the Letters Patent that govern, and under them, Archie is not entitled to a title because he's a great-grandchild of the Queen whose royal parent is not directly in line to the throne. That's why the Cambridge kids have titles and he doesn't. Under the existing rules, Archie will receive the title when Charles ascends to the throne, since he'll be the grandchild of the sitting monarch, but if that was the goal, his parents really screwed him over. If Charles amends the rules such that Archie is denied that title (as is being speculated), he'll explain it as wanting to streamline the monarchy, and since his parents are no longer working royals and are raising him in California with no connection to the UK, he will almost certainly have the support of the public. The BRF doesn't really care what pro-Sussex Americans think about them.

M&H were swiftly and universally called out in the UK for misrepresenting this on Oprah. This absurd claim didn't help them at all or erode support for the BRF over there.