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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the beginning, I was a fan. I thought she was kind, beautiful, smart. But OMG, the underhanded moves against the queen and trying to cash in while claiming to desire "privacy" It's the ultimate in hypocrisy. I will never see her the same again.

She’s just playing Rachel Zane over and over. In reality she’s more like when Rachel has a temper tantrum on Suits. She does that so realistically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found According 2taz YouTube channel for Harry and Meghan commentary entertaining. I liked MM in the beginning and was excited for them. After the wedding it was one disappointment after another. I see divorce on the horizon.

I watch Murky Meg and Taz on YouTube.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legit question--why do people on this forum hate Meghan so much? I mean she's objectively attractive. She's educated. Successful in her chosen career. Never said anything too controversial. I just don't get the hate.

Jealousy? Racism? I honestly would like the know. Maybe I'm missing some truly annoying things she does?

She's a very public failure as a wife of a prince. That's why I don't like her.

How so? She seems to do well talking to people at charities. I guess her family life was a mess but Diana would go on TV and talk about her divorce.

Diana put in the time as a working royal for 11 years before separating from Charles. Meghan bailed out of her responsibilities in less than 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legit question--why do people on this forum hate Meghan so much? I mean she's objectively attractive. She's educated. Successful in her chosen career. Never said anything too controversial. I just don't get the hate.

Jealousy? Racism? I honestly would like the know. Maybe I'm missing some truly annoying things she does?

She's a very public failure as a wife of a prince. That's why I don't like her.

How so? She seems to do well talking to people at charities. I guess her family life was a mess but Diana would go on TV and talk about her divorce.

Diana put in the time as a working royal for 11 years before separating from Charles. Meghan bailed out of her responsibilities in less than 2 years.

2 years, but more than 25% of that time was on maternity leave which was nearly immediately followed by another 6 week extended break.

Princessing fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like their “royal” titles will go away after March 31, but they’ll reassess in a year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51565325

This is a direct quote from the article you posted:

The couple will formally retain their HRH titles

Maybe read the article next time?

N

That only means that the Queen isn’t (yet) formally stripping them of the HRH. She would need to issue letters patent to do so. My speculation is that she expects Harry to come back to the fold (Meghan too maybe, but I peg the likelihood at near zero) with tail tucked between his legs. It would look silly to formally strip him of the HRH then give it back. Hence the statement about revisiting the arrangement in a year. I also
think that what that really means is that if H and M make such fools of themselves, then the Queen will formally strip them.

On the other hand, they are not allowed to call themselves royal, they are “required” to step back from all of the royal duties, lose all the royal patronages etc. Most importantly to them - they can’t brand themselves as ‘Sussex Royal’. What matters is what happens in practice.

Except they've already made $1 million in cash and its only been a month since they left. Why in the world would this happen? I can easily see them bringing in $20 million in contracts this year alone. The Bon Jovi song by itself is worth millions.

Isn't the song meant for the foundation though?

Yes the money will benefit Invictus and Bon Jovi, not these two jokes. Also, assuming they made money from that JP Morgan talk, they are technically still royals right now and I’m guessing that’s how they got the fee. And 2, I’m sure that’s a violation of their agreement and the family can’t be happy. As time passes, there will be less interest in them. No doubt they will me able to make some money, but not nearly enough to afford them the lifestyle they have now.

This is the same thing commenters said before their wedding. 2 year anniversary date coming up in 3 months and if anything its grown stronger. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

They need the good kind of interest to make money. This is what people are talking about.

You mean the 'good' kind of interest that had JP Morgan paying them $1 million for a single speech? Or Goldman Sachs partnering with Prince Harry.

Look I get that it rubs your chubs that they can and do make money easily but if we're talking about 'bad' kind of interest, the publicity they had post-South Africa was the worst. Guess what?

Six months later they've secured a $14 million mansion rental, made $1 million unattached to royal coffers, and have more offers than they possibly know what to deal with.

Yes, the good kind of interest that will fade as they cease to be royals and continue to rub people through wrong way.

The Kato Kaelin gigs will shrivel up as well, but keep thinking that it’s an accomplishment to be a moocher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like their “royal” titles will go away after March 31, but they’ll reassess in a year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51565325

This is a direct quote from the article you posted:

The couple will formally retain their HRH titles

Maybe read the article next time?

N

That only means that the Queen isn’t (yet) formally stripping them of the HRH. She would need to issue letters patent to do so. My speculation is that she expects Harry to come back to the fold (Meghan too maybe, but I peg the likelihood at near zero) with tail tucked between his legs. It would look silly to formally strip him of the HRH then give it back. Hence the statement about revisiting the arrangement in a year. I also
think that what that really means is that if H and M make such fools of themselves, then the Queen will formally strip them.

On the other hand, they are not allowed to call themselves royal, they are “required” to step back from all of the royal duties, lose all the royal patronages etc. Most importantly to them - they can’t brand themselves as ‘Sussex Royal’. What matters is what happens in practice.

Except they've already made $1 million in cash and its only been a month since they left. Why in the world would this happen? I can easily see them bringing in $20 million in contracts this year alone. The Bon Jovi song by itself is worth millions.

Isn't the song meant for the foundation though?

Yes the money will benefit Invictus and Bon Jovi, not these two jokes. Also, assuming they made money from that JP Morgan talk, they are technically still royals right now and I’m guessing that’s how they got the fee. And 2, I’m sure that’s a violation of their agreement and the family can’t be happy. As time passes, there will be less interest in them. No doubt they will me able to make some money, but not nearly enough to afford them the lifestyle they have now.

This is the same thing commenters said before their wedding. 2 year anniversary date coming up in 3 months and if anything its grown stronger. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

They need the good kind of interest to make money. This is what people are talking about.

You mean the 'good' kind of interest that had JP Morgan paying them $1 million for a single speech? Or Goldman Sachs partnering with Prince Harry.

Look I get that it rubs your chubs that they can and do make money easily but if we're talking about 'bad' kind of interest, the publicity they had post-South Africa was the worst. Guess what?

Six months later they've secured a $14 million mansion rental, made $1 million unattached to royal coffers, and have more offers than they possibly know what to deal with.

Yes, the good kind of interest that will fade as they cease to be royals and continue to rub people through wrong way.

The Kato Kaelin gigs will shrivel up as well, but keep thinking that it’s an accomplishment to be a moocher.

They are following in the footsteps of their uncle Andrew and Fergie. The British public must be so proud. Maybe they can find their own billionaire pedophile to hang out with; I’m sure their good friends the Clintons can help out. Epstein is dead, but I don’t think they have a shortage of pedophile billionaire friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like their “royal” titles will go away after March 31, but they’ll reassess in a year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51565325

This is a direct quote from the article you posted:

The couple will formally retain their HRH titles

Maybe read the article next time?

N

That only means that the Queen isn’t (yet) formally stripping them of the HRH. She would need to issue letters patent to do so. My speculation is that she expects Harry to come back to the fold (Meghan too maybe, but I peg the likelihood at near zero) with tail tucked between his legs. It would look silly to formally strip him of the HRH then give it back. Hence the statement about revisiting the arrangement in a year. I also
think that what that really means is that if H and M make such fools of themselves, then the Queen will formally strip them.

On the other hand, they are not allowed to call themselves royal, they are “required” to step back from all of the royal duties, lose all the royal patronages etc. Most importantly to them - they can’t brand themselves as ‘Sussex Royal’. What matters is what happens in practice.

Except they've already made $1 million in cash and its only been a month since they left. Why in the world would this happen? I can easily see them bringing in $20 million in contracts this year alone. The Bon Jovi song by itself is worth millions.

Isn't the song meant for the foundation though?

Yes the money will benefit Invictus and Bon Jovi, not these two jokes. Also, assuming they made money from that JP Morgan talk, they are technically still royals right now and I’m guessing that’s how they got the fee. And 2, I’m sure that’s a violation of their agreement and the family can’t be happy. As time passes, there will be less interest in them. No doubt they will me able to make some money, but not nearly enough to afford them the lifestyle they have now.

This is the same thing commenters said before their wedding. 2 year anniversary date coming up in 3 months and if anything its grown stronger. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

They need the good kind of interest to make money. This is what people are talking about.

You mean the 'good' kind of interest that had JP Morgan paying them $1 million for a single speech? Or Goldman Sachs partnering with Prince Harry.

Look I get that it rubs your chubs that they can and do make money easily but if we're talking about 'bad' kind of interest, the publicity they had post-South Africa was the worst. Guess what?

Six months later they've secured a $14 million mansion rental, made $1 million unattached to royal coffers, and have more offers than they possibly know what to deal with.

A few months after the Africa tour, they lost:
Their royal roles, Sussex Royal, the goodwill of the British people, money from the sovereign grant, and they have to pay back $3M. Canadians don’t want to pay for their security, and neither do the British people, so their taxpayer funded security is on thin ice.

They gained: some freedom, maybe $1M for a speech where they sold out Diana, and the support of some sketchy billionaire.

Sounds like a good trade I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like their “royal” titles will go away after March 31, but they’ll reassess in a year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51565325

This is a direct quote from the article you posted:

The couple will formally retain their HRH titles

Maybe read the article next time?

N

That only means that the Queen isn’t (yet) formally stripping them of the HRH. She would need to issue letters patent to do so. My speculation is that she expects Harry to come back to the fold (Meghan too maybe, but I peg the likelihood at near zero) with tail tucked between his legs. It would look silly to formally strip him of the HRH then give it back. Hence the statement about revisiting the arrangement in a year. I also
think that what that really means is that if H and M make such fools of themselves, then the Queen will formally strip them.

On the other hand, they are not allowed to call themselves royal, they are “required” to step back from all of the royal duties, lose all the royal patronages etc. Most importantly to them - they can’t brand themselves as ‘Sussex Royal’. What matters is what happens in practice.

Except they've already made $1 million in cash and its only been a month since they left. Why in the world would this happen? I can easily see them bringing in $20 million in contracts this year alone. The Bon Jovi song by itself is worth millions.

Isn't the song meant for the foundation though?

Yes the money will benefit Invictus and Bon Jovi, not these two jokes. Also, assuming they made money from that JP Morgan talk, they are technically still royals right now and I’m guessing that’s how they got the fee. And 2, I’m sure that’s a violation of their agreement and the family can’t be happy. As time passes, there will be less interest in them. No doubt they will me able to make some money, but not nearly enough to afford them the lifestyle they have now.

This is the same thing commenters said before their wedding. 2 year anniversary date coming up in 3 months and if anything its grown stronger. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

They need the good kind of interest to make money. This is what people are talking about.

You mean the 'good' kind of interest that had JP Morgan paying them $1 million for a single speech? Or Goldman Sachs partnering with Prince Harry.

Look I get that it rubs your chubs that they can and do make money easily but if we're talking about 'bad' kind of interest, the publicity they had post-South Africa was the worst. Guess what?

Six months later they've secured a $14 million mansion rental, made $1 million unattached to royal coffers, and have more offers than they possibly know what to deal with.

$1MM pre-tax does not go far in their world.

All of these articles coming out and going on about all of these lucrative offers they have to pick from. Well, why aren’t they actually doing anything else (besides giving one speech) to earn some paper?

The cost alone of the nanny who cares for their baby child while they jet around to cash in on Diana’s memory must be eating up some of that million (along with the Tax Men from 3 different countries)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legit question--why do people on this forum hate Meghan so much? I mean she's objectively attractive. She's educated. Successful in her chosen career. Never said anything too controversial. I just don't get the hate.

Jealousy? Racism? I honestly would like the know. Maybe I'm missing some truly annoying things she does?

My strong dislike of shameless, family-wrecking grifters is color blind and jealousy free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legit question--why do people on this forum hate Meghan so much? I mean she's objectively attractive. She's educated. Successful in her chosen career. Never said anything too controversial. I just don't get the hate.

Jealousy? Racism? I honestly would like the know. Maybe I'm missing some truly annoying things she does?

My strong dislike of shameless, family-wrecking grifters is color blind and jealousy free

This is the perfect response and I wish I’d thought of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legit question--why do people on this forum hate Meghan so much? I mean she's objectively attractive. She's educated. Successful in her chosen career. Never said anything too controversial. I just don't get the hate.

Jealousy? Racism? I honestly would like the know. Maybe I'm missing some truly annoying things she does?

My strong dislike of shameless, family-wrecking grifters is color blind and jealousy free

This... that interview with the trembling lower lip after their wildly successful Africa tour made me realize just how self absorbed she is. Whining that people haven't asked if she's "ok" after just touring one of the most acute areas of human suffering on the planet was just... unbelievably odd. It also was weirdly passive aggressive - like who is she referring to? Charles who walked her down the aisle and was practically her BFF? QE2 who gave her unprecedented privileges with ow quickly she gave MM patronages, engagements and tours (even before the wedding she invited her to Sandringham, something that had never been done before)? Her dad that literally cries on tv asking for his daughter to call him? Serena? Priyanka? Amaal? Oprah? Poor Meghan is all I got out of that interview, and that was such a shame because she had a real chance to get the publicity of their tour to help those she had just seen in Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legit question--why do people on this forum hate Meghan so much? I mean she's objectively attractive. She's educated. Successful in her chosen career. Never said anything too controversial. I just don't get the hate.

Jealousy? Racism? I honestly would like the know. Maybe I'm missing some truly annoying things she does?

My strong dislike of shameless, family-wrecking grifters is color blind and jealousy free

This is the perfect response and I wish I’d thought of it.

Faux environmentalism
Faux sympathy for the poor
Faux financial independence (which relies on taxpayer for security and billionaire friends for free mansions)
Faux friends (newfound celebrity friends like the Clooneys)

Par for the course for these fake royals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t tolerate phonies so that’s my reason.

Why do you think she's a fake? Honestly curious.

have you not been paying attention?

The private jet fiasco for one and their massive massive carbon footprint, while claiming to be environmentalists.

Pretending to care about the plight of some of the poorest people in the world, and even tearing up on camera for the documentary that was meant to highlight such suffering. But whoops they are tearing up about their own plight.

I think the private jet thing is a real issue and legit criticism but honestly it is not unique to them. Charles took a private jet to Davos to speak about some climate change thing. Kate took a private jet to Northern Ireland last week. Leonardo DiCaprio is considered a big environmentalist and takes PJs everywhere. Yet, there aren’t hundred page threads on any of these people. Famous people don’t want to fly commercial with us plebes.