Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch Meg saying “I gave up my career!” But then Harry mentioning his family wanted her to keep acting?

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

Because the taxpayers pay for their security.

This is a really important point that no one seems to be mentioning.

This is while they were still working royals.

Really the BRF has no defense if any of this is true. They cut Meghan's security while they were working and removed Archie from the line of succession. Look at Andrew- he's a spare and his kids are princesses.

Huh? They got security until March 2020.

Andrew’s kids are princesses because he asked for it. Harry could’ve done the same thing as Archie got older.

Sorry — I was wrong. It’s because of the George V letters patent. Male-line grandchildren of the sovereign.

Harry is a step removed. He’s the brother of Charles’ son. Not in the direct line.

[Anonymous]

Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security in 2011 and Andrew had to start paying for it. There was a whole row at the time.

[Anonymous]

Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security in 2011 and Andrew had to start paying for it. There was a whole row at the time.

Right.

People are so ready to be enraged that they aren’t interested in any details.

It’s worth noting, as we talk about titles, that Kate is not a Princess. Charlotte is, but she is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Go take a look at Twitter on this and come back and report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't watch. So Oprah did not ask them why they were intent on retaining their titles?

Well, it’s irrelevant now because apparently the royal family has taken away their titles, since doing this interview was a violation of the agreement they had made with the Queen last year.

Nope. They will no longer be referred to as HRH, but they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

At the end of the interview, Harry said *all* their titles were taken away.

That was not in the February 28 announcement, and was not true as of yesterday. There are rumors that the Queen may do it after this interview, but no official announcement has been made.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30518980/meghan-markle-prince-harry-new-royal-roles-titles/

All of the reporting on this confuses matters by referring to HRH as a "title." It's not a title; it's a style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security in 2011 and Andrew had to start paying for it. There was a whole row at the time.

And Archie gets no security. Beatrice and Eugene had security up to adulthood but Harry and Meghan would have to pay for Archie’s security even in the remained as working royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d never seen either of them talk before today and don’t follow much of the blow by blow on them (until today).

He seems MUCH more intelligent, reasoned and sane than I expected him to be. She has Hollywood about her, but she’s also clearly a real human.

It was very interesting to hear about the job vs family bits of this.

The punch I really heard him pulling is that the royal family puts up with, even fosters, the tabloid press because if the tabloid press turns on them, there’s no real argument for the BRF in 2021. I respect him for not going all the way to saying this; it would make the whole thing collapse faster if he did.

I predict he lands on top.

He didn’t say this but it came through crystal clear.

Rupert Murdoch not only controls American politics and the GOP and Australian politics, he also has control of the British Royal family.

Major news media should not be owned and controlled by oligarchs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it just me but he didn't sound really all that happy when Oprah asked him what his life was like now.

Yeah that was a looooong pause....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security in 2011 and Andrew had to start paying for it. There was a whole row at the time.

And Archie gets no security. Beatrice and Eugene had security up to adulthood but Harry and Meghan would have to pay for Archie’s security even in the remained as working royals.

This isn’t even true.

Remember — they all had security until March 2020, when they stopped being working royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security in 2011 and Andrew had to start paying for it. There was a whole row at the time.

And Archie gets no security. Beatrice and Eugene had security up to adulthood but Harry and Meghan would have to pay for Archie’s security even in the remained as working royals.

So they completely misrepresented that entire scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security in 2011 and Andrew had to start paying for it. There was a whole row at the time.

And Archie gets no security. Beatrice and Eugene had security up to adulthood but Harry and Meghan would have to pay for Archie’s security even in the remained as working royals.

So they completely misrepresented that entire scenario?

They didn’t at all mention that the Canadian Government protected them until a year ago when they gave up being working royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

It's been explained multiple times, many of those explanations wrong and all of them omitting key context.