Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Megan travel with Harry for the Diana event next week?

No. She has said the reason why is that she can't leave the baby alone.

She left Archie alone, didn't she?

I'm the PP. I agree with you, my read is that she's not welcome in the UK (or at least at BRF events) and has been told so. But the public reason is that she can't leave the baby alone, so she saves face and looks like a good parent.

Why can't all 4 of them go? Parents travel with babies/kids all the time . And of all people with private ages, nannies, and other help at their beckoning , this should be easy (especially compared to us commoners who still travel successfully with babies/kids).

I’m the same PP - yes, I agree that it seems like an excuse. She clearly doesn’t want to go or has been asked/told not to, and this is the public reason. However, even if I were taking her 100% at her word, I understand why she wouldn’t want to fly all that way and travel internationally with a month-old baby. Especially during a pandemic, even assuming H&M are vaccinated.

Excuse my ignorance but are most women fully recovered so soon after childbirth and able to travel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear Lilibet is 21 days old. What responsible parent would get on an airplane to a foreign country with a newborn baby even preCovid? If this thread is any indication of the idiocy Megan and Harry have to deal with, than I definitely feel for them. I would not have the patience for such foolishness, it’s one thing to attack H&M but all bets are off when innocent babies are involved.

+1

I was told not to bring my baby near a crowd of people until she had her first shots. no way would i take a 21 day old baby on a plane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how much for Harry and how much for Will?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/harry-charles-finances-royal-palace/2021/06/24/675411b0-d4ca-11eb-b39f-05a2d776b1f4_story.html

Prince Charles continued to financially support the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after they stepped down as senior members of the British royal family, according to financial accounts released Thursday.

Prince Charles’s office, Clarence House, published in its annual accounts that Charles paid his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, and their families, a sum of $6.3 million. The annual report covers the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. It’s not broken down by family.

Harry previously had told Oprah Winfrey that his family "literally cut me off financially" in the first quarter of 2020. He said he had to use money left to him by his mother, Princess Diana, to help pay for security for his family.

A spokesman for Clarence House told the BBC that “the Prince of Wales allocated a substantial sum” to Harry and Meghan, the duke and duchess, last year “to support them” with their transition in stepping down as senior members of the British royal family and relocating to California.

Is anyone surprised that Harry’s version of “cut off” means only getting millions of pounds? And when he said he was cut off in the “first quarter,” he really meant summer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how much for Harry and how much for Will?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/harry-charles-finances-royal-palace/2021/06/24/675411b0-d4ca-11eb-b39f-05a2d776b1f4_story.html

Prince Charles continued to financially support the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after they stepped down as senior members of the British royal family, according to financial accounts released Thursday.

Prince Charles’s office, Clarence House, published in its annual accounts that Charles paid his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, and their families, a sum of $6.3 million. The annual report covers the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. It’s not broken down by family.

Harry previously had told Oprah Winfrey that his family "literally cut me off financially" in the first quarter of 2020. He said he had to use money left to him by his mother, Princess Diana, to help pay for security for his family.

A spokesman for Clarence House told the BBC that “the Prince of Wales allocated a substantial sum” to Harry and Meghan, the duke and duchess, last year “to support them” with their transition in stepping down as senior members of the British royal family and relocating to California.

Is anyone surprised that Harry’s version of “cut off” means only getting millions of pounds? And when he said he was cut off in the “first quarter,” he really meant summer?

Lol. Don’t mess with Harry and his “truth.”

[Anonymous]

Yeah, for all the Sussex’s claim, it appears that BRF are the only one with receipts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment on GOMI is perfect:

mama meowed:

It just makes me laugh that Meghan rolled up into the palace with these diva boss babe demands and an exacting “work ethic” that no one could keep up with like she was some super A lister or high powered former CEO or executive. Like, lady where do you get off. You were a former ensemble player on a cable show. Please spare me the sob story of how no staff could keep up with your professional demands. It sounds like she was being a huge brat and was drunk on her newly found power and status. That’s MUCH different than being a demanding boss although she wouldn’t know that because she never was a boss or had subordinates before in her C lister life!

Getting a position on a regularly airing show is likely more than the whole British family (save possibly Philip) could do if they had to make things happen themselves. I don’t think a single one of them that isn’t a married-in graduated with honors of any kind which is the one opportunity they have to show their stuff without their name (sorta).

It is what it is. It's not like Meghan could make a Netflix or a book deal happen by herself either.

Let's say it again: the Sussex problem is that their connection to the royal family is the most interesting thing about them.

I don't think that is THEIR problem, they seem to know that and be leveraging it. It seems to be that that is the problem YOU and people like you have with them. That they have been able to leverage the connection to establish fame and security for themselves while extracting themselves from the situation.

Sorry they didn't pull a Britney and just accept abusive indentured servitude indefinitely.

They have used their royal connection while at the same time bashing everything about the BRF. Some people who haven’t drunk the Kool aid might think that’s a tad hypocritical.

They haven't bashed everything about the BRF, that is hyperbolic.

What have they not complained about?

QE2, Cousins, Phillip, Frogmore (the public complained about this not H&M), charitable work

They said in the Oprah interview someone in the family made comments about Archie's potential skin color. Did they clarify who they were talking about? I think Gayle said (maybe Gayle?) said it wasn't the Queen or Philip. But they didn't clear anyone else right?

And in the Apple interview, didn't Harry make a comment about the Queen's terrible parenting of Charles and genetic pain and how he was going to do things differently? That doesn't seem very nice. Here's a link in case you forgot this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prince-harry-royals-genetic-pain-b1847238.html

While it might not be “very nice” it’s also stuff that Charles openly put out there first. So castigate Charles for putting the details of his upbringing out there for open discussion.

That’s childlike logic. Just because someone else says something doesn’t mean you are absolved from the consequences of saying it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how much for Harry and how much for Will?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/harry-charles-finances-royal-palace/2021/06/24/675411b0-d4ca-11eb-b39f-05a2d776b1f4_story.html

Prince Charles continued to financially support the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after they stepped down as senior members of the British royal family, according to financial accounts released Thursday.

Prince Charles’s office, Clarence House, published in its annual accounts that Charles paid his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, and their families, a sum of $6.3 million. The annual report covers the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. It’s not broken down by family.

Harry previously had told Oprah Winfrey that his family "literally cut me off financially" in the first quarter of 2020. He said he had to use money left to him by his mother, Princess Diana, to help pay for security for his family.

A spokesman for Clarence House told the BBC that “the Prince of Wales allocated a substantial sum” to Harry and Meghan, the duke and duchess, last year “to support them” with their transition in stepping down as senior members of the British royal family and relocating to California.

Harry publicly trashed his dad right after greedily accepting his dad’s millions. So spoiled and ungrateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how much for Harry and how much for Will?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/harry-charles-finances-royal-palace/2021/06/24/675411b0-d4ca-11eb-b39f-05a2d776b1f4_story.html

Prince Charles continued to financially support the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after they stepped down as senior members of the British royal family, according to financial accounts released Thursday.

Prince Charles’s office, Clarence House, published in its annual accounts that Charles paid his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, and their families, a sum of $6.3 million. The annual report covers the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. It’s not broken down by family.

Harry previously had told Oprah Winfrey that his family "literally cut me off financially" in the first quarter of 2020. He said he had to use money left to him by his mother, Princess Diana, to help pay for security for his family.

A spokesman for Clarence House told the BBC that “the Prince of Wales allocated a substantial sum” to Harry and Meghan, the duke and duchess, last year “to support them” with their transition in stepping down as senior members of the British royal family and relocating to California.

Is anyone surprised that Harry’s version of “cut off” means only getting millions of pounds? And when he said he was cut off in the “first quarter,” he really meant summer?

They are just so horrible. No wonder Charles doesn’t want to see him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment on GOMI is perfect:

mama meowed:

It just makes me laugh that Meghan rolled up into the palace with these diva boss babe demands and an exacting “work ethic” that no one could keep up with like she was some super A lister or high powered former CEO or executive. Like, lady where do you get off. You were a former ensemble player on a cable show. Please spare me the sob story of how no staff could keep up with your professional demands. It sounds like she was being a huge brat and was drunk on her newly found power and status. That’s MUCH different than being a demanding boss although she wouldn’t know that because she never was a boss or had subordinates before in her C lister life!

Getting a position on a regularly airing show is likely more than the whole British family (save possibly Philip) could do if they had to make things happen themselves. I don’t think a single one of them that isn’t a married-in graduated with honors of any kind which is the one opportunity they have to show their stuff without their name (sorta).

It is what it is. It's not like Meghan could make a Netflix or a book deal happen by herself either.

Let's say it again: the Sussex problem is that their connection to the royal family is the most interesting thing about them.

But that’s true of literally every single member of the royal family lol. Prince Charles and Camilla are only interesting because of their connection to Queen Elizabeth. The Cambridges are only interesting because of their connection to the royal family. Queen Elizabeth is only interesting because of her connection to her father and because her uncle married some psycho. Etc.

The people you listed understand this, and accordingly spend their efforts serving that which makes them interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment on GOMI is perfect:

mama meowed:

It just makes me laugh that Meghan rolled up into the palace with these diva boss babe demands and an exacting “work ethic” that no one could keep up with like she was some super A lister or high powered former CEO or executive. Like, lady where do you get off. You were a former ensemble player on a cable show. Please spare me the sob story of how no staff could keep up with your professional demands. It sounds like she was being a huge brat and was drunk on her newly found power and status. That’s MUCH different than being a demanding boss although she wouldn’t know that because she never was a boss or had subordinates before in her C lister life!

Getting a position on a regularly airing show is likely more than the whole British family (save possibly Philip) could do if they had to make things happen themselves. I don’t think a single one of them that isn’t a married-in graduated with honors of any kind which is the one opportunity they have to show their stuff without their name (sorta).

It is what it is. It's not like Meghan could make a Netflix or a book deal happen by herself either.

Let's say it again: the Sussex problem is that their connection to the royal family is the most interesting thing about them.

I don't think that is THEIR problem, they seem to know that and be leveraging it. It seems to be that that is the problem YOU and people like you have with them. That they have been able to leverage the connection to establish fame and security for themselves while extracting themselves from the situation.

Sorry they didn't pull a Britney and just accept abusive indentured servitude indefinitely.

It's not a problem, it's one more thing to laugh about as I watch them pretend to have independent value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t keep up but the fact remains that Charles is the worst father in the world. He is horrible. They should skip over him!

What’s so terrible about Charles?

He was largely absent, did not support his children through the death of their mother, and I would argue that the entire Camilla/Charles/Diana saga was, in addition to him being a terrible husband, him being a terrible father. He has been known to be cold, although less so in recent years, and perhaps more so in the last two!

Even Diana said Charles is a good father.

A crown isn't a prize to the best parent ever. Were that the case, there'd be no queen.

Charles supported and parented his boys in his own way. It may not fit the parenting mold of today, but neither did your parents if they were born when Charles was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

+1. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t keep up but the fact remains that Charles is the worst father in the world. He is horrible. They should skip over him!

What’s so terrible about Charles?

-Son and grandchildren live thousands of miles away. Twice in three months, son makes the trip to be where Dad is. Dad makes plans to be out of town.

There’s a long history that you can easily catch up on if you like. While I believe that Charles might have meant well, he sucked royally (haha) as a husband and as a father, particularly for Harry, the younger son.

Aren't you missing a critical detail? Son trashes father on global TV shortly before meeting and while the father's father is on his deathbed? While STILL expecting the father to apologize and make the first move?

Wow. You must be quite a slave to your children if they expect to be able to trash you in public yet still receive your humble apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

I think there is more to it - angling for a takedown of Charles and William. Harry seems like a bitter angry man out to oust his father and brother from their lofty perches above him.