Meghan and Prince Harry are moving to the U.S./Canada - OFFICIAL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently, the queen considered entirely stripping Meghan and Harry of their duke and duchess titles. According to the Evening Standard, Her Majesty contemplated making Harry use his lesser title, the Earl of Dumbarton, and making Meghan a countess (similar to Prince Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex). Yikes.

Apparently, the queen (and Prince Charles) decided against this move because they didn’t want to appear “petty.” Per a source, “The Sussex title is one of the ancient royal dukedoms given to him ahead of his wedding to Meghan, along with other titles. Removing it was seriously considered and discussed at the highest level.”

Apparently, it's still not off of the table.

I can't believe I'm responding to this thread but I'm bored.

This is a good example of the British Press making something up. The Queen bestow a title of Duke but she can not remove it. This would take getting Parliament getting involved. In the past people have lost titles by voluntarily abdicating or committing treason or some other extreme crime. The BRF are not the only titled aristocrats in the UK, there are dozens of them and they are not subject to the Queen's whims anymore than her offspring. The idea behind this is that its a birthrate once its bestowed and the nobility don't want to give up this guarantee.

There was an article in CNN in the past 24 hours that Buckingham Palace released a press statement that the Queen is reconsidering revoking the HRH. I guess it was pointed out that removing the HRH was the precedent for handling divorced non blood family members and they don't want to put Megan and Harry in the same category. Looks like HRH will be back.

There also is no requirement that HRH or membership in the BRF means you are a working royal. This is a new idea introduced only in this generation. The Queen can determine who is part of the Sovereign Grant and carrying out official duties covered by the public funds. There is no requirement for how many official duties they must do.

They were granted the Duke & Duchess titles by the Queen at the time of their wedding. HRH was removed.

So the title of Duke has been changed to Earl in the past. Nobody said she would not go to Parliament.

I feel like public opinion would definitely turn against her if she went to parliament with this.

They’re trying to negotiate Brexit and she wants them to mediate a family therapy session? Come on, she’s not an idiot.

[Anonymous]

If she was going to downgrade Harry to an earl and Meghan to a countess, the Queen would have announced it at the beginning. What to call them is a pretty minor adjustment. Whether they will be allowed to use “royal” is a much bigger issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she was going to downgrade Harry to an earl and Meghan to a countess, the Queen would have announced it at the beginning. What to call them is a pretty minor adjustment. Whether they will be allowed to use “royal” is a much bigger issue.

It is said it was seriously considered. Now because of the trouble with the new title making Meghan sound divorced, it was considered once again.

[Anonymous]

It is said by whom exactly? You have no sources because you're simply regurgitating baseless tabloid stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this rate I don’t know if they are going to run out staff or money first.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7915063/Meghan-Markle-loses-NINTH-member-staff-aide-ran-Sussex-Royal-foundation-quits.html

Who wants to move to Canada and take a less prestigious job?

She should’ve stuck to her job with the Cambridges.

There wasn’t much of an upside. She likely was getting negative feedback about being associated with the couple and ran the real risk of being fired by Meghan if things weren’t going well.

This is normal as a foundation gets off the ground.

It’s interesting that the paper attempts to hide the obvious conflict of interest. They are currently in a legal battle with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex so it’s in their interest to portray the everyday operations of their foundations as a failure. The only other source cited is the Sun - the other publication being sued by the couple. Interesting how there are no unbiased sources.

That list includes press secretaries, private secretaries, personal assistant, nannies and on and on. This has nothing to do with setting up a foundation. This is public knowledge, widely reported and the people involved are named.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doria did one thing wrong. Hooked up with an asshole White man in the first place.

And... she's back.

Why did she let that asshole white man raise her daughter instead of raising her herself? Also interesting that Meghan praises the asshole man on The Tig without having the same adoration for Doria. Just saying something is off here!

Saying this multiple times does not make it true. After her parents divorced Meghan lived with Doria.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/amp16405569/meghan-markle-mother-doria-ragland/

“Markle, who is Ragland's only child, lived with her mother after her parents' split, but saw her father regularly.”

You’ve posted multiple times basically saying Doria is some kind of deadbeat and I can only assume that level of dedication to make the only black woman in this family look like an absentee mom is motivated, at least in part, by racism.

Newsflash, racism is so last week. Yawn, boring, in the eye of the beholder and all that (the only racist post I can find was the one calling Meghan's father an "asshole white man" and saying it was a mistake for Doria to shack up with him).

This weeks is greed and hypocrisy. SussexRoyal branding and copyrights. And running away to Canada for privacy only to start suing the Canadian press a week later. Keep up.

You are truly delusional.

Maybe the delusional ones are the angry woke people who only want to see racism in everything and use it as an excuse to ignore everything else because it can't ever possibly be one's own faults or mistakes

How is you repeatedly saying something stereotypical, negative, and demonstrably false about a black person (Doria) anyone else’s “fault or mistake?”

I'm not the one talking about Doria - there are clearly many other people posting on this thread. I only pointed out that the claims of racism is so last week and has been overshadowed by manifesting evidence of the real reason the Sussexes are making a break for it to Canada (hypocrisy, greed, selfishness, stupidity, narcissism and perhaps genuine guile).

By the way, I also hate to point this out but there are many deadbeat white mothers too. They don't have a monopoly on who gets to be a bad mother. Not that I think Doria is a bad mother but alleging she is one isn't a racist act.

Taking the time to repeatedly post that she is one despite people previously saying she was not a deadbeat is indicative of wanting to shoehorn Doria into a certain image just like describing Doria’s home as being gang infested is. Posting that once is maybe a mean spirited mistake but to say the same thing multiple places in the thread is not.

Also is there anyway for Jeff to reveal if these posts are the same person or not?

Take a long deep breath. Has anyone on this thread implied Doria lives in a gang-infested neighborhood? Now, I haven't read all 360 pages but I've glanced through quite a bit of it over the past 10 days. I do see people wanting to shoehorn the whole situation into a very narrow prism of racism where everything involved is explained by racism and nothing else.

I will say if anyone surrounding the Sussex brouhaha has behaved impeccably, it's Doria. Because she keeps her mouth shut and profile low.

I will say if anyone surrounding the Sussex brouhaha has behaved impeccably, it’s been the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William. They cut the Sussexes loose with a bunch of cash and (the Queen) publicly reaffirmed their love for them both and wished them well.

Pretty impressive for a family that was forced back on their heels by their ingrate son/brother/grandson and his grifter wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no invasion of Meghan's privacy while in UK, although there were plenty of petty and mean articles. Lot's of invasion of privacy in Canada, it appears she doesn't mind.

The topless pictures of Kate were a gross invasion of privacy. That was one of the few times in the last decade and a half the palace reacted. They don't get into a tit-for-tat with the tabloids when they publish rumors. They didn't even do it when Diana was secretly spilling the beans.

Meghan's letter to her father was a fiasco that showed a gross lack of judgement on her part, or maybe desperation to tell her side of the story. Perhaps they should have been more vocal in support of her then, but honestly what do you say, it's family drama playing out in public. I can see why other members of the family did not want to get entangled.

I think some insiders wanted to keep Meghan in her place, or she would have made Kate, the future queen, look bad. Meghan has a better work ethic, more articulate, more charisma and strong opinions. Kate was a blancmanger in comparison. Meghan had to be taken out. And out she did go.

Right. She can offer up a healthy portion of word salad

You might not agree with her ideas, but she is clearly a better public speaker, and better at articulating herself, than poor Kate.

Meghan Markle is a fearless public speaker, and clearly has the street smarts to run the scam of the century.

But I do not find that she articulates herself well with both spoken and written words. Her speeches are loaded with nonsense buzzwords, and her writing (as shown in Vogue) is a bunch of misleading, turgid prose (no, she did NOT have tacos with Michelle Obama! She ate tacos while typing and sending her questionnaire to Mrs. Obama’s assistant)

With regard to Kate, you truly think Meghan has a superior work ethic? Meghan couldn’t even do the job for two years before tapping out

[Anonymous]

Meghan and Kate are not comparable. Will and Harry are not comparable. Harry and Meghan are doing Will and Kate's jobs to make things easier for them. Harry is another of the Queens grandchildren. He is not in line for the throne. His father may or may not be king. His sibling may or may not be king but at best he's the son, brother or uncle of the King. He should be allow the choice as none of the other grandchildren have official duties or under the Queen's control. If he was in line for the throne, its different. Kate is either the future Queen or King's Mother. Very different roles and places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently, the queen considered entirely stripping Meghan and Harry of their duke and duchess titles. According to the Evening Standard, Her Majesty contemplated making Harry use his lesser title, the Earl of Dumbarton, and making Meghan a countess (similar to Prince Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex). Yikes.

Apparently, the queen (and Prince Charles) decided against this move because they didn’t want to appear “petty.” Per a source, “The Sussex title is one of the ancient royal dukedoms given to him ahead of his wedding to Meghan, along with other titles. Removing it was seriously considered and discussed at the highest level.”

Apparently, it's still not off of the table.

I can't believe I'm responding to this thread but I'm bored.

This is a good example of the British Press making something up. The Queen bestow a title of Duke but she can not remove it. This would take getting Parliament getting involved. In the past people have lost titles by voluntarily abdicating or committing treason or some other extreme crime. The BRF are not the only titled aristocrats in the UK, there are dozens of them and they are not subject to the Queen's whims anymore than her offspring. The idea behind this is that its a birthrate once its bestowed and the nobility don't want to give up this guarantee.

There was an article in CNN in the past 24 hours that Buckingham Palace released a press statement that the Queen is reconsidering revoking the HRH. I guess it was pointed out that removing the HRH was the precedent for handling divorced non blood family members and they don't want to put Megan and Harry in the same category. Looks like HRH will be back.

There also is no requirement that HRH or membership in the BRF means you are a working royal. This is a new idea introduced only in this generation. The Queen can determine who is part of the Sovereign Grant and carrying out official duties covered by the public funds. There is no requirement for how many official duties they must do.

They were granted the Duke & Duchess titles by the Queen at the time of their wedding. HRH was removed.

So the title of Duke has been changed to Earl in the past. Nobody said she would not go to Parliament.

I feel like public opinion would definitely turn against her if she went to parliament with this.

They’re trying to negotiate Brexit and she wants them to mediate a family therapy session? Come on, she’s not an idiot.

Or she can just call Harry and Meghan's bluff- "I am sad to announce that due to their own desires am I acceding to their requests and removing all their titles. Best of luck on their new endeavors."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was going to downgrade Harry to an earl and Meghan to a countess, the Queen would have announced it at the beginning. What to call them is a pretty minor adjustment. Whether they will be allowed to use “royal” is a much bigger issue.

It is said it was seriously considered. Now because of the trouble with the new title making Meghan sound divorced, it was considered once again.

Big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently, the queen considered entirely stripping Meghan and Harry of their duke and duchess titles. According to the Evening Standard, Her Majesty contemplated making Harry use his lesser title, the Earl of Dumbarton, and making Meghan a countess (similar to Prince Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex). Yikes.

Apparently, the queen (and Prince Charles) decided against this move because they didn’t want to appear “petty.” Per a source, “The Sussex title is one of the ancient royal dukedoms given to him ahead of his wedding to Meghan, along with other titles. Removing it was seriously considered and discussed at the highest level.”

Apparently, it's still not off of the table.

I can't believe I'm responding to this thread but I'm bored.

This is a good example of the British Press making something up. The Queen bestow a title of Duke but she can not remove it. This would take getting Parliament getting involved. In the past people have lost titles by voluntarily abdicating or committing treason or some other extreme crime. The BRF are not the only titled aristocrats in the UK, there are dozens of them and they are not subject to the Queen's whims anymore than her offspring. The idea behind this is that its a birthrate once its bestowed and the nobility don't want to give up this guarantee.

There was an article in CNN in the past 24 hours that Buckingham Palace released a press statement that the Queen is reconsidering revoking the HRH. I guess it was pointed out that removing the HRH was the precedent for handling divorced non blood family members and they don't want to put Megan and Harry in the same category. Looks like HRH will be back.

There also is no requirement that HRH or membership in the BRF means you are a working royal. This is a new idea introduced only in this generation. The Queen can determine who is part of the Sovereign Grant and carrying out official duties covered by the public funds. There is no requirement for how many official duties they must do.

They were granted the Duke & Duchess titles by the Queen at the time of their wedding. HRH was removed.

So the title of Duke has been changed to Earl in the past. Nobody said she would not go to Parliament.

I feel like public opinion would definitely turn against her if she went to parliament with this.

They’re trying to negotiate Brexit and she wants them to mediate a family therapy session? Come on, she’s not an idiot.

Or she can just call Harry and Meghan's bluff- "I am sad to announce that due to their own desires am I acceding to their requests and removing all their titles. Best of luck on their new endeavors."

But to legally remove their titles she has to go through parliament.



It will look like the BRF having a tantrum and being super controlling. Not a good look. Again, the queen is not an idiot so she’s not going to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently, the queen considered entirely stripping Meghan and Harry of their duke and duchess titles. According to the Evening Standard, Her Majesty contemplated making Harry use his lesser title, the Earl of Dumbarton, and making Meghan a countess (similar to Prince Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex). Yikes.

Apparently, the queen (and Prince Charles) decided against this move because they didn’t want to appear “petty.” Per a source, “The Sussex title is one of the ancient royal dukedoms given to him ahead of his wedding to Meghan, along with other titles. Removing it was seriously considered and discussed at the highest level.”

Apparently, it's still not off of the table.

I can't believe I'm responding to this thread but I'm bored.

This is a good example of the British Press making something up. The Queen bestow a title of Duke but she can not remove it. This would take getting Parliament getting involved. In the past people have lost titles by voluntarily abdicating or committing treason or some other extreme crime. The BRF are not the only titled aristocrats in the UK, there are dozens of them and they are not subject to the Queen's whims anymore than her offspring. The idea behind this is that its a birthrate once its bestowed and the nobility don't want to give up this guarantee.

There was an article in CNN in the past 24 hours that Buckingham Palace released a press statement that the Queen is reconsidering revoking the HRH. I guess it was pointed out that removing the HRH was the precedent for handling divorced non blood family members and they don't want to put Megan and Harry in the same category. Looks like HRH will be back.

There also is no requirement that HRH or membership in the BRF means you are a working royal. This is a new idea introduced only in this generation. The Queen can determine who is part of the Sovereign Grant and carrying out official duties covered by the public funds. There is no requirement for how many official duties they must do.

They were granted the Duke & Duchess titles by the Queen at the time of their wedding. HRH was removed.

So the title of Duke has been changed to Earl in the past. Nobody said she would not go to Parliament.

I feel like public opinion would definitely turn against her if she went to parliament with this.

They’re trying to negotiate Brexit and she wants them to mediate a family therapy session? Come on, she’s not an idiot.

Or she can just call Harry and Meghan's bluff- "I am sad to announce that due to their own desires am I acceding to their requests and removing all their titles. Best of luck on their new endeavors."

But to legally remove their titles she has to go through parliament.



It will look like the BRF having a tantrum and being super controlling. Not a good look. Again, the queen is not an idiot so she’s not going to do this.

This is not true - the Queen can issue letters patent, as part of her constitutional powers to bestow or revoke the Duke of Sussex or HRH titles. REmember this dukedom is royal and she bestowed it through letters patent. In fact she is the only one who could revoke this for Harry and Megan. In terms of the HRH title, the Queens statement was very clear - they formally retain the HRH but will not use it. Kind of like how Archie could be styled Earl of Dumbarton but he does not.

Lots of misinformation on this thread. If you're contributing to a 300 page thread on this you must care about this crap enough to do some research on it.

[Anonymous]

No the Queen powers to revoke are limited as are her powers to grant them independently.

She can grant titles to family but she can only grant something like Dukedom to a non-royal on the advice of the prime minister. The PM is required through a process involving the political parties. The Queen only can revoke a title if it is recommended by the Honors Forfeiture Committee. This has only occurred when the individual in question has been convicted of a serious crime. If Prince Andrew were to be convicted in the rape case then this committee probably would recommend revoking Andrew's titles. Its highly unlikely that the committee would change things to revoke a Dukedom because of stepping back or whatever. The title of Duke is a legally defined entity. It often is tied to lands and assets. Removing it is a big deal beyond what you would be introduced as at a party.

Furthermore, the thing that terrifies the Queen and Charles the most is the Republicans getting a wedge in to simply abolish the monarchy. The Queen has very favorable ratings but Charles does not. There also is a large generational divide with younger Britons being indifferent to whether the monarchy continues. The last thing they want to do is involve the political branches of the government.

[Anonymous]

Or she can just call Harry and Meghan's bluff- "I am sad to announce that due to their own desires am I acceding to their requests and removing all their titles. Best of luck on their new endeavors."

Dp- Oh man! I can tell you so so so so want this to happen.
Please get a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no invasion of Meghan's privacy while in UK, although there were plenty of petty and mean articles. Lot's of invasion of privacy in Canada, it appears she doesn't mind.

The topless pictures of Kate were a gross invasion of privacy. That was one of the few times in the last decade and a half the palace reacted. They don't get into a tit-for-tat with the tabloids when they publish rumors. They didn't even do it when Diana was secretly spilling the beans.

Meghan's letter to her father was a fiasco that showed a gross lack of judgement on her part, or maybe desperation to tell her side of the story. Perhaps they should have been more vocal in support of her then, but honestly what do you say, it's family drama playing out in public. I can see why other members of the family did not want to get entangled.

I think some insiders wanted to keep Meghan in her place, or she would have made Kate, the future queen, look bad. Meghan has a better work ethic, more articulate, more charisma and strong opinions. Kate was a blancmanger in comparison. Meghan had to be taken out. And out she did go.

Right. She can offer up a healthy portion of word salad

You might not agree with her ideas, but she is clearly a better public speaker, and better at articulating herself, than poor Kate.

Meghan Markle is a fearless public speaker, and clearly has the street smarts to run the scam of the century.

But I do not find that she articulates herself well with both spoken and written words. Her speeches are loaded with nonsense buzzwords, and her writing (as shown in Vogue) is a bunch of misleading, turgid prose (no, she did NOT have tacos with Michelle Obama! She ate tacos while typing and sending her questionnaire to Mrs. Obama’s assistant)

With regard to Kate, you truly think Meghan has a superior work ethic? Meghan couldn’t even do the job for two years before tapping out

Agree.