Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

The fact that they were registering domains before their daughter was born gives more credence to "informing" the Queen as opposed to getting her blessing on the name Lilibet. Way to to put gran on the spot. Disgusting that they use their children and their connection to the "racist" monarchy as cash cows because they have no talents to speak of.
It is so incredibly obvious what these two are all about.

[Anonymous]

As an american my impression was that the title stuff was the least important thing they were arguing over

[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.

DP. There’s no evidence that there was a lapse in security or any problem with the handover to a new security team. So apparently there was in fact sufficient time to switch security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they were registering domains before their daughter was born gives more credence to "informing" the Queen as opposed to getting her blessing on the name Lilibet. Way to to put gran on the spot. Disgusting that they use their children and their connection to the "racist" monarchy as cash cows because they have no talents to speak of.
It is so incredibly obvious what these two are all about.

It's actually very, very common practice for public figures to register domain names (and similar) for their children (or similar, e.g. new companies), and to also claim multiple variations. The Sussexes already debunked this: they registered multiple domain name options for their daughter in advance, not just Lilibet Diana.

[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.

DP. This logic doesn’t work as you’ve articulated no limiting principle.

Based on your reasoning, should Charles acquiesce to every demand of H&M because they have mixed race kids? Because otherwise he’d be committing a strategic mistake? Where does it end?

[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.

+1. Yep. PP nails it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they were registering domains before their daughter was born gives more credence to "informing" the Queen as opposed to getting her blessing on the name Lilibet. Way to to put gran on the spot. Disgusting that they use their children and their connection to the "racist" monarchy as cash cows because they have no talents to speak of.
It is so incredibly obvious what these two are all about.

Ummm, not really. It's just proof... that they... registered... some... domains. Domains that are like $15. I bought domains for all of the names on my list but didn't decide on my DD's name until after she was born. And I let the ones I didn't need expire.

This domain thing is absolutely the silliest reason to criticize them. I'm sure you can find something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they were registering domains before their daughter was born gives more credence to "informing" the Queen as opposed to getting her blessing on the name Lilibet. Way to to put gran on the spot. Disgusting that they use their children and their connection to the "racist" monarchy as cash cows because they have no talents to speak of.
It is so incredibly obvious what these two are all about.

It's actually very, very common practice for public figures to register domain names (and similar) for their children (or similar, e.g. new companies), and to also claim multiple variations. The Sussexes already debunked this: they registered multiple domain name options for their daughter in advance, not just Lilibet Diana.

What’s the evidence for this (besides H&M’s current claims)? What were the other names? Regardless, I trust the BBC over H&M on the issue of whether they asked permission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they were registering domains before their daughter was born gives more credence to "informing" the Queen as opposed to getting her blessing on the name Lilibet. Way to to put gran on the spot. Disgusting that they use their children and their connection to the "racist" monarchy as cash cows because they have no talents to speak of.
It is so incredibly obvious what these two are all about.

It's actually very, very common practice for public figures to register domain names (and similar) for their children (or similar, e.g. new companies), and to also claim multiple variations. The Sussexes already debunked this: they registered multiple domain name options for their daughter in advance, not just Lilibet Diana.

What’s the evidence for this (besides H&M’s current claims)? What were the other names? Regardless, I trust the BBC over H&M on the issue of whether they asked permission.

+1. There’s no evidence besides their word, and they’ve proven untrustworthy. Also, the domains are ancillary to the larger point of whether they asked for permission. The BRF (through the BBC) says they didn’t. And only put that out after H&M affirmatively leaked that they had asked. Why lie about things like this?

[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.

?

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.

+1. Yep. PP nails it.

+100. All of this but especially the bold. Except switch out they/them for Meghan. Poor Harry has no idea what the plan was/is and is just going along for the ride.

[Anonymous]

The catalyst for all this mess is obviously Meghan. Harry, by himself never expressed an interest in accumulating more wealth and more fame. It makes no sense.

Its hilarious that this random D lister though British palaces and tiaras were not enough and wanted MORE money and MORE fame.

Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The catalyst for all this mess is obviously Meghan. Harry, by himself never expressed an interest in accumulating more wealth and more fame. It makes no sense.

Its hilarious that this random D lister though British palaces and tiaras were not enough and wanted MORE money and MORE fame.

Gross.

And hey, she got it and you're still sitting in your boring house whining about it on an anonymous message board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The catalyst for all this mess is obviously Meghan. Harry, by himself never expressed an interest in accumulating more wealth and more fame. It makes no sense.

Its hilarious that this random D lister though British palaces and tiaras were not enough and wanted MORE money and MORE fame.

Gross.

She's got balls I'll give her that. But I really think its just her NPD.

Symptoms according to Mayo Clinic:

Symptoms
Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and the severity of symptoms vary. People with the disorder can:

Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerate achievements and talents
Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
Take advantage of others to get what they want
Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
Be envious of others and believe others envy them
Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office
At the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can:

Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment
Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted
React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior
Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection
Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The catalyst for all this mess is obviously Meghan. Harry, by himself never expressed an interest in accumulating more wealth and more fame. It makes no sense.

Its hilarious that this random D lister though British palaces and tiaras were not enough and wanted MORE money and MORE fame.

Gross.

And hey, she got it and you're still sitting in your boring house whining about it on an anonymous message board.

And who cared how many people she takes down along the way #amirite?

[Anonymous]

Meghan Markle wanted out because she was being absolutely obliterated and villainized by the British press, not because she wanted more money and fame.