The Banishment of the Sussexes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as the queen sending Meghan on so many diplomatic missions, it was sending her away. What part of that wasn’t clear?

The Queen doesn't live with Meghan, she doesn't need to send her away. And believe me - there are easier ways to get rid of someone than to ask them to represent your country as they personally meet the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the President of Ireland, and the King of Morocco.

In foreign affairs lingo - you never send an idiot to meet the head of a foreign nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as the queen sending Meghan on so many diplomatic missions, it was sending her away. What part of that wasn’t clear?

You really are a ding dong, aren’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:William is coming out of this looking weak and like a man-baby. It's pretty ridiculous how Harry has been doing everything since his marriage that William should have been doing eight years ago.

- Three international tours
- Growing and raising children
- High-level engagements with political officials
- Activities with Commonwealth institutions and countries

Now they're going on annual weeks-long tours of these countries? That is something Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip did when she first reigned. Prince Charles and Princess Diana (now Duchess Camilla) as well.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a27231716/meghan-markle-prince-harry-work-in-africa/

Let's wait until the baby is born before you claim that they are "raising" any children. Kate and William have three so they already have done this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William is coming out of this looking weak and like a man-baby. It's pretty ridiculous how Harry has been doing everything since his marriage that William should have been doing eight years ago.

- Three international tours
- Growing and raising children
- High-level engagements with political officials
- Activities with Commonwealth institutions and countries

Now they're going on annual weeks-long tours of these countries? That is something Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip did when she first reigned. Prince Charles and Princess Diana (now Duchess Camilla) as well.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a27231716/meghan-markle-prince-harry-work-in-africa/

Oh did you miss the part where William and Kate’s focus has been on growing and raising their children as you listed? Harry doesn’t even have a kid to raise yet.

Missed it? No. But every adult member of the royal family has kids. The Queen and Prince Phillip have four. Prince Charles has two. Princess Royal Anne has two. Prince Edward and Countess Wessex have two. Prince Andrew has two.

Oh, and Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan have done everything mentioned in less than 10 months time as she was pregnant with a brand-new royal at the same time.

Amazing...that these people all have some kind of wondrous family-raising superpower that the Cambridges don't.

Why are you listing people with kids who are already adults?

Because those children didn't pop out of the womb as 6-feet-tall humans?

Their parents navigated the same challenges of raising a royal child as William & Kate do. The difference is they weren't lazy.

Sure. George and the rest will be shipped off to boarding school soon enough. Not soon enough to please you, it seems, and possibly not at all. Tsk tsk.

You are a loon. Unlike the lazy Cambridges, the other BRF parents were able to work and raise their kids at the same time. It's always excuses for William and Kate.

DP I think Queen Elizabeth would agree that her relationship with her older children was not as close because the nannies raised them. Perhaps Will and Kate want to raise their children more than them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William is coming out of this looking weak and like a man-baby. It's pretty ridiculous how Harry has been doing everything since his marriage that William should have been doing eight years ago.

- Three international tours
- Growing and raising children
- High-level engagements with political officials
- Activities with Commonwealth institutions and countries

Now they're going on annual weeks-long tours of these countries? That is something Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip did when she first reigned. Prince Charles and Princess Diana (now Duchess Camilla) as well.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a27231716/meghan-markle-prince-harry-work-in-africa/

Oh did you miss the part where William and Kate’s focus has been on growing and raising their children as you listed? Harry doesn’t even have a kid to raise yet.

Missed it? No. But every adult member of the royal family has kids. The Queen and Prince Phillip have four. Prince Charles has two. Princess Royal Anne has two. Prince Edward and Countess Wessex have two. Prince Andrew has two.

Oh, and Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan have done everything mentioned in less than 10 months time as she was pregnant with a brand-new royal at the same time.

Amazing...that these people all have some kind of wondrous family-raising superpower that the Cambridges don't.

Why are you listing people with kids who are already adults?

Because those children didn't pop out of the womb as 6-feet-tall humans?

Their parents navigated the same challenges of raising a royal child as William & Kate do. The difference is they weren't lazy.

Sure. George and the rest will be shipped off to boarding school soon enough. Not soon enough to please you, it seems, and possibly not at all. Tsk tsk.

You are a loon. Unlike the lazy Cambridges, the other BRF parents were able to work and raise their kids at the same time. It's always excuses for William and Kate.

DP I think Queen Elizabeth would agree that her relationship with her older children was not as close because the nannies raised them. Perhaps Will and Kate want to raise their children more than them?

Andrew is a spoiled brat and Edward is the prince no one knows. So I wouldn't call doting on royal an asset the greatest thing, but sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William is coming out of this looking weak and like a man-baby. It's pretty ridiculous how Harry has been doing everything since his marriage that William should have been doing eight years ago.

- Three international tours
- Growing and raising children
- High-level engagements with political officials
- Activities with Commonwealth institutions and countries

Now they're going on annual weeks-long tours of these countries? That is something Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip did when she first reigned. Prince Charles and Princess Diana (now Duchess Camilla) as well.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a27231716/meghan-markle-prince-harry-work-in-africa/

Oh did you miss the part where William and Kate’s focus has been on growing and raising their children as you listed? Harry doesn’t even have a kid to raise yet.

Missed it? No. But every adult member of the royal family has kids. The Queen and Prince Phillip have four. Prince Charles has two. Princess Royal Anne has two. Prince Edward and Countess Wessex have two. Prince Andrew has two.

Oh, and Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan have done everything mentioned in less than 10 months time as she was pregnant with a brand-new royal at the same time.

Amazing...that these people all have some kind of wondrous family-raising superpower that the Cambridges don't.

Why are you listing people with kids who are already adults?

Because those children didn't pop out of the womb as 6-feet-tall humans?

Their parents navigated the same challenges of raising a royal child as William & Kate do. The difference is they weren't lazy.

Sure. George and the rest will be shipped off to boarding school soon enough. Not soon enough to please you, it seems, and possibly not at all. Tsk tsk.

You are a loon. Unlike the lazy Cambridges, the other BRF parents were able to work and raise their kids at the same time. It's always excuses for William and Kate.

DP I think Queen Elizabeth would agree that her relationship with her older children was not as close because the nannies raised them. Perhaps Will and Kate want to raise their children more than them?

Andrew is a spoiled brat and Edward is the prince no one knows. So I wouldn't call doting on royal an asset the greatest thing, but sure.

Well. just because the Queen paid more attention to Andrew and Edward doesn't mean it was a whole lot. If the only insult you can give Edward is that he isn't known than that doesn't sound too bad. Your argument about Prince Andrew being a spoiled brat makes no sense. Are you suggesting we all hire nannies so they don't grow up to be brats?

[Anonymous]

isn't there some crazy royal fan forum you people can move too? surely there aren't this many mentally ill people in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as the queen sending Meghan on so many diplomatic missions, it was sending her away. What part of that wasn’t clear?

+1

Seriously.

She wants to be rid of that memememme girl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:isn't there some crazy royal fan forum you people can move too? surely there aren't this many mentally ill people in DC[/quote]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Kate is happy to share the spotlight. She seems rather shy and any attention the press gives Meghan is less time Kate has to be in the spotlight.

I agree and don't think Kate minds Meghan taking the spotlight. I, however, think Will is being grumpy about being overshadowed individually AND as a family unit.

Kate seems easy-going and just wants to get out to her farmhouse. William is an obstinate and lazy b*stard.

Eh. I just think William wants to get the media off of the Rose stuff (whatever it is, affair or something else). That's why the story about MI5 and 6 came out.

I don't see William as behind the story about Meghan making Kate cry or texting at 5am or her NY baby shower.

This was all lies being spewed by Megan’s people. She wants the limelight and is doing anything to push William and Kate our. Of course Wills didn’t have an affair, esp after what happened with his parents!

I keep seeing this point being made over and over and it is simply untrue. For better or for worse Charles, as his father, is his most important male role model. That matters. Children whose parents cheat are actually more likely to cheat: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/children-with-unfaithful-parents-more-likely-to-cheat-2017-10

Just like how men who witnessed their mother being abused are MORE not less likely to be abusive. To assume that an adolescent whose brain is still developing would respond to a situation the same way an adult would is misguided.

[Anonymous]

All lies. Can’t believe how gullible you all are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a good look for a country, still trying to escape its history of colonialism, to exile its first black family member (back?) to Africa.

That's one way to look at it. Probably would've been better optics to exile them to New Zealand. You're right about that.

I totally agree with this. I actually initially dismissed the speculation out of hand, because there's no way they could be THAT blind to optics, right? Australia? NZ? Sure. (Canada is also a bad idea and one I can't believe they would have considered.) But "Africa"? Especially how they keep referring to the whole continent as though it is one big amorphous place (esp when most of it isn't even in the Commonwealth)? TERRIBLE OPTICS. If they want to go less "privileged" than Australia/NZ, then they can go India/Pakistan/Malaysia/Sri Lanka. Would fit in w/ some of Meghan's pre-royal charities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a good look for a country, still trying to escape its history of colonialism, to exile its first black family member (back?) to Africa.

That's one way to look at it. Probably would've been better optics to exile them to New Zealand. You're right about that.

I totally agree with this. I actually initially dismissed the speculation out of hand, because there's no way they could be THAT blind to optics, right? Australia? NZ? Sure. (Canada is also a bad idea and one I can't believe they would have considered.) But "Africa"? Especially how they keep referring to the whole continent as though it is one big amorphous place (esp when most of it isn't even in the Commonwealth)? TERRIBLE OPTICS. If they want to go less "privileged" than Australia/NZ, then they can go India/Pakistan/Malaysia/Sri Lanka. Would fit in w/ some of Meghan's pre-royal charities.

Terrible optics and terrible PR work from Kensington Palace.

[Anonymous]

Umm, its not the Sussexes who are banished.

Prince William’s Banished Mistress?

http://www.royalfoibles.com/prince-williams-banished-mistress/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a good look for a country, still trying to escape its history of colonialism, to exile its first black family member (back?) to Africa.

That's one way to look at it. Probably would've been better optics to exile them to New Zealand. You're right about that.

I totally agree with this. I actually initially dismissed the speculation out of hand, because there's no way they could be THAT blind to optics, right? Australia? NZ? Sure. (Canada is also a bad idea and one I can't believe they would have considered.) But "Africa"? Especially how they keep referring to the whole continent as though it is one big amorphous place (esp when most of it isn't even in the Commonwealth)? TERRIBLE OPTICS. If they want to go less "privileged" than Australia/NZ, then they can go India/Pakistan/Malaysia/Sri Lanka. Would fit in w/ some of Meghan's pre-royal charities.

Terrible optics and terrible PR work from Kensington Palace.

Not that terrible, since it's not happening.