Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wanted to add, I do not find dignity in silence. I find dignity in truth, sincerity and honesty. If H&M felt this interview was necessary to shine a light on the problem of racism that exists within not just the BRF, the press, etc but the UK as a whole, well: good for them.

Complaining is when you stay within the system, reap its benefits and yet hold resentment and speak on it often (some of you married ladies can relate). H&M are not complainers, IMO. They said their piece. Now, moving on to boss moves and philanthropy (cause, if you're Royal, at least be of some benefit and do that)...

Except they did not shine a light. No individual was mentioned as the perpetrator of this "racism" and the claim has been angrily and vehemently rebutted by Prince William. End of story.

End of story? Yet this thread/topic has gone on...how long now? You can believe what you want but to pretend this didn't rock the UK (and elsewhere) is disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wanted to add, I do not find dignity in silence. I find dignity in truth, sincerity and honesty. If H&M felt this interview was necessary to shine a light on the problem of racism that exists within not just the BRF, the press, etc but the UK as a whole, well: good for them.

Complaining is when you stay within the system, reap its benefits and yet hold resentment and speak on it often (some of you married ladies can relate). H&M are not complainers, IMO. They said their piece. Now, moving on to boss moves and philanthropy (cause, if you're Royal, at least be of some benefit and do that)...

Except they did not shine a light. No individual was mentioned as the perpetrator of this "racism" and the claim has been angrily and vehemently rebutted by Prince William. End of story.

And the claim was hearsay- Meghan said that Harry said that someone speculated about the color of the baby’s skin. Meghan wasn’t there- she has no idea what was actually said, what the context was or whether this actually happened or not. Given that she outright lied about her wedding and twisted the reasoning for Archie’s not getting a title he wasn’t entitled to in this same interview, I’m not sure how much weight her claim carries. While we can all speculate whether racism exists in the BRF, we know for a fact that Harry is just as guilty (if not more) of having a racist past as some of his relatives. We’ve never seen William in a nazi costume or refer to Middle Easterners as ragheads. These two just keep looking more and more hypocritical.

Funny you mention that party because William was there with Harry. Except he was in blackface. Of course, back then the deal with the royal Rota was that they could publish drunk pictures of Harry as long as they cropped William out.

Really? William wore blackface? Evidence please. Otherwise I’m not buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wanted to add, I do not find dignity in silence. I find dignity in truth, sincerity and honesty. If H&M felt this interview was necessary to shine a light on the problem of racism that exists within not just the BRF, the press, etc but the UK as a whole, well: good for them.

Complaining is when you stay within the system, reap its benefits and yet hold resentment and speak on it often (some of you married ladies can relate). H&M are not complainers, IMO. They said their piece. Now, moving on to boss moves and philanthropy (cause, if you're Royal, at least be of some benefit and do that)...

Except they did not shine a light. No individual was mentioned as the perpetrator of this "racism" and the claim has been angrily and vehemently rebutted by Prince William. End of story.

And the claim was hearsay- Meghan said that Harry said that someone speculated about the color of the baby’s skin. Meghan wasn’t there- she has no idea what was actually said, what the context was or whether this actually happened or not. Given that she outright lied about her wedding and twisted the reasoning for Archie’s not getting a title he wasn’t entitled to in this same interview, I’m not sure how much weight her claim carries. While we can all speculate whether racism exists in the BRF, we know for a fact that Harry is just as guilty (if not more) of having a racist past as some of his relatives. We’ve never seen William in a nazi costume or refer to Middle Easterners as ragheads. These two just keep looking more and more hypocritical.

Funny you mention that party because William was there with Harry. Except he was in blackface. Of course, back then the deal with the royal Rota was that they could publish drunk pictures of Harry as long as they cropped William out.

Really? William wore blackface? Evidence please. Otherwise I’m not buying it.

William wore a lion costume to the same party where Harry dressed as a Nazi. No one has ever alleged he wore blackface except for PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all monarchs are usurpers and descendants of usurpers; for the reason that no throne was ever set up in this world by the will, freely exercised, of the only body possessing the legitimate right to set it up -- the numerical mass of the nation."

We have no princes, dukes nor duchesses here in the United States. Nor should we ever.

Signed, We The People (who have no countenance nor patience for the royally titled)

+1 Let them fall...

+ 331,002,650 (minus 1 for Meghan, of course)

Which is the number of Americans who do NOT need nor want seeds of monarchism here, which start out small. Like a title or an honorific which means you are above others.

Personally, I will make my voice heard to any company or organization which chooses to use these two and their "royal" titles as representatives. Hope others do the same.

God help the White House if they jump on board. The fall-out will be immense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wanted to add, I do not find dignity in silence. I find dignity in truth, sincerity and honesty. If H&M felt this interview was necessary to shine a light on the problem of racism that exists within not just the BRF, the press, etc but the UK as a whole, well: good for them.

Complaining is when you stay within the system, reap its benefits and yet hold resentment and speak on it often (some of you married ladies can relate). H&M are not complainers, IMO. They said their piece. Now, moving on to boss moves and philanthropy (cause, if you're Royal, at least be of some benefit and do that)...

Except they did not shine a light. No individual was mentioned as the perpetrator of this "racism" and the claim has been angrily and vehemently rebutted by Prince William. End of story.

And the claim was hearsay- Meghan said that Harry said that someone speculated about the color of the baby’s skin. Meghan wasn’t there- she has no idea what was actually said, what the context was or whether this actually happened or not. Given that she outright lied about her wedding and twisted the reasoning for Archie’s not getting a title he wasn’t entitled to in this same interview, I’m not sure how much weight her claim carries. While we can all speculate whether racism exists in the BRF, we know for a fact that Harry is just as guilty (if not more) of having a racist past as some of his relatives. We’ve never seen William in a nazi costume or refer to Middle Easterners as ragheads. These two just keep looking more and more hypocritical.

At the same party where Harry wore the Nazi costume, William was dressed as a Zulu warrior. Later the press changed it to “an animal costume” because it featured leopard pelts and doubled down focusing on Harry. Because that’s the way it’s always been: sacrifice the spare and focus on his antics to protect the heir. The theme of the party was colonials and natives. 🙄

But I don’t hold that against either of them because I know that people can grow and change a lot in 17 years.

And when I have Harry and Megan insisted that people use their titles? I follow the Royals and I have seen several times people mention that they just want to be called Harry and Megan. If people use their titles, how do you know they’re insisting? Do you have any proof? If you were being honest, you would probably admit that if they start using your titles you blast them for that disrespect too. But you aren’t so you won’t.

Care to provide any evidence that it was a Zulu costume not an animal costume?

In any case, it wouldn’t matter much to me. I’m not a fan of William either, although he does seem less whiny and narcissistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it interesting that they still use their titles, are upset that Archie wasn't made a prince, and yet cry about how toxic the whole family is? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Titles are his, by birth. No less his than any of the other made up titles they honor.

I understand that's why he still HAS titles. What I am asking is why are they still using them publicly if they despirse so much the institution the titles represent.

H&M: "The BRF is toxic and racist and hates us."
Also H&M: "Please call us by our BRF titles at all times."

Again, cause they're his. May have associations that tie to his identity, despite the flawed system. Not my decision to judge. Or yours.

It’s hypocritical, whether you like it or not.

It's really not but okay.

We don't use titles in this country. They are at best like nicknames. But they carry no weight and should not be used here. He can use Harry Windsor / MB or Harry Sussex if he wants to live here.

[Anonymous]

H&M are going to be in some real tax doo-doo before long. particularly Markle.

The Washington Post had an interesting article about this in 2017 which was long before Megxit. Notable excerpts:

"U.S. citizens are subject to U.S. tax obligations regardless of their country of residence," Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor ... "A member of the royal family would be treated just like anyone else."

"By contrast, if Prince Harry were to move to the United States to live with Markle, he would not be expected to file taxes in Britain. ...

For Prince Harry, the issue isn't that he will suddenly end up paying U.S. income tax, but rather that Markle's American citizenship could open up the secretive finances of the royal family to outside scrutiny.

If she remains a U.S. citizen, Markle will have to file her taxes to the IRS every year ... she will be expected to annually file a document called Form 8938 that will reveal the detail of these assets, which could include foreign trusts.

This sharing of financial information with the U.S. government would probably be undesirable for the royal family, which has long preferred that its finances remain opaque.

Although Markle's tax information would not become public once sent to the United States, it would leave the royal family open not only to IRS review but also the risk that the information could leak, said Dianne Mehany, a tax lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale.

"It’s not outside the realm of possibility that a form filed by the wife of a royal would draw increased scrutiny," Mehany said. The royal family's labyrinthine fiscal arrangements were already partly exposed by the Paradise Papers leak earlier this month, which revealed that Queen Elizabeth's estate has invested money in offshore tax havens.

IMO if someone wants to watch the "American" royals, this is where the focus should be!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it interesting that they still use their titles, are upset that Archie wasn't made a prince, and yet cry about how toxic the whole family is? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Titles are his, by birth. No less his than any of the other made up titles they honor.

I understand that's why he still HAS titles. What I am asking is why are they still using them publicly if they despirse so much the institution the titles represent.

H&M: "The BRF is toxic and racist and hates us."
Also H&M: "Please call us by our BRF titles at all times."

Again, cause they're his. May have associations that tie to his identity, despite the flawed system. Not my decision to judge. Or yours.

It’s hypocritical, whether you like it or not.

It's really not but okay.

We don't use titles in this country. They are at best like nicknames. But they carry no weight and should not be used here. He can use Harry Windsor / MB or Harry Sussex if he wants to live here.

Indeed! In fact, there was a constitutional amendment proposed awhile ago (but is still eligible for ratification) that would strip American citizenship from a citizen who accepted a royal title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wanted to add, I do not find dignity in silence. I find dignity in truth, sincerity and honesty. If H&M felt this interview was necessary to shine a light on the problem of racism that exists within not just the BRF, the press, etc but the UK as a whole, well: good for them.

Complaining is when you stay within the system, reap its benefits and yet hold resentment and speak on it often (some of you married ladies can relate). H&M are not complainers, IMO. They said their piece. Now, moving on to boss moves and philanthropy (cause, if you're Royal, at least be of some benefit and do that)...

Except they did not shine a light. No individual was mentioned as the perpetrator of this "racism" and the claim has been angrily and vehemently rebutted by Prince William. End of story.

End of story? Yet this thread/topic has gone on...how long now? You can believe what you want but to pretend this didn't rock the UK (and elsewhere) is disingenuous.

that's pretty funny, this sad old thread is hardly an international investigation or even media...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it interesting that they still use their titles, are upset that Archie wasn't made a prince, and yet cry about how toxic the whole family is? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Titles are his, by birth. No less his than any of the other made up titles they honor.

I understand that's why he still HAS titles. What I am asking is why are they still using them publicly if they despirse so much the institution the titles represent.

H&M: "The BRF is toxic and racist and hates us."
Also H&M: "Please call us by our BRF titles at all times."

Again, cause they're his. May have associations that tie to his identity, despite the flawed system. Not my decision to judge. Or yours.

It’s hypocritical, whether you like it or not.

It's really not but okay.

We don't use titles in this country. They are at best like nicknames. But they carry no weight and should not be used here. He can use Harry Windsor / MB or Harry Sussex if he wants to live here.

Indeed! In fact, there was a constitutional amendment proposed awhile ago (but is still eligible for ratification) that would strip American citizenship from a citizen who accepted a royal title.

There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. In 300 years.

You really think you're going to get an amendment for something that realistically affects 4-5 individuals? Maybe 8 if you add on Marie-Chantel's American kids that hold royal titles?

Think again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it interesting that they still use their titles, are upset that Archie wasn't made a prince, and yet cry about how toxic the whole family is? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Titles are his, by birth. No less his than any of the other made up titles they honor.

I understand that's why he still HAS titles. What I am asking is why are they still using them publicly if they despirse so much the institution the titles represent.

H&M: "The BRF is toxic and racist and hates us."
Also H&M: "Please call us by our BRF titles at all times."

Again, cause they're his. May have associations that tie to his identity, despite the flawed system. Not my decision to judge. Or yours.

It’s hypocritical, whether you like it or not.

It's really not but okay.

We don't use titles in this country. They are at best like nicknames. But they carry no weight and should not be used here. He can use Harry Windsor / MB or Harry Sussex if he wants to live here.

Indeed! In fact, there was a constitutional amendment proposed awhile ago (but is still eligible for ratification) that would strip American citizenship from a citizen who accepted a royal title.

There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. In 300 years.

You really think you're going to get an amendment for something that realistically affects 4-5 individuals? Maybe 8 if you add on Marie-Chantel's American kids that hold royal titles?

Think again.

What about dogs named Duke, Prince, Princess, Lady, and Baronet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just wanted to add, I do not find dignity in silence. I find dignity in truth, sincerity and honesty. If H&M felt this interview was necessary to shine a light on the problem of racism that exists within not just the BRF, the press, etc but the UK as a whole, well: good for them.

Complaining is when you stay within the system, reap its benefits and yet hold resentment and speak on it often (some of you married ladies can relate). H&M are not complainers, IMO. They said their piece. Now, moving on to boss moves and philanthropy (cause, if you're Royal, at least be of some benefit and do that)...

This, 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it interesting that they still use their titles, are upset that Archie wasn't made a prince, and yet cry about how toxic the whole family is? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Titles are his, by birth. No less his than any of the other made up titles they honor.

I understand that's why he still HAS titles. What I am asking is why are they still using them publicly if they despirse so much the institution the titles represent.

H&M: "The BRF is toxic and racist and hates us."
Also H&M: "Please call us by our BRF titles at all times."

Again, cause they're his. May have associations that tie to his identity, despite the flawed system. Not my decision to judge. Or yours.

It’s hypocritical, whether you like it or not.

It's really not but okay.

We don't use titles in this country. They are at best like nicknames. But they carry no weight and should not be used here. He can use Harry Windsor / MB or Harry Sussex if he wants to live here.

Indeed! In fact, there was a constitutional amendment proposed awhile ago (but is still eligible for ratification) that would strip American citizenship from a citizen who accepted a royal title.

There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. In 300 years.

You really think you're going to get an amendment for something that realistically affects 4-5 individuals? Maybe 8 if you add on Marie-Chantel's American kids that hold royal titles?

Think again.

Probably not. But the suggestion of it as a possibility is enough to invoke some interesting debate. It's not how many people it affects nor is it some hasty idea based on Markle alone. It's been brought up before thus it's still supposedly eligible for ratification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it interesting that they still use their titles, are upset that Archie wasn't made a prince, and yet cry about how toxic the whole family is? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Titles are his, by birth. No less his than any of the other made up titles they honor.

I understand that's why he still HAS titles. What I am asking is why are they still using them publicly if they despirse so much the institution the titles represent.

H&M: "The BRF is toxic and racist and hates us."
Also H&M: "Please call us by our BRF titles at all times."

Again, cause they're his. May have associations that tie to his identity, despite the flawed system. Not my decision to judge. Or yours.

It reeks of insincerity and childish tantrums.

Agreed. It was childish of Charles to cut off their security. It was insincere power move that massively backfired. Charles miscalculated that if he pulled their security it would force them back under whatever terms he dictated.

Boy did end up being immature and tone deaf.

Agreed. The BRF gambled but they were dealing with a new Harry. Whatever happens with them as a couple, I'm glad that he's grown into himself as a man. I think his Mom would be proud.

Its interesting how well Harry has come out in all of this. His popularity is as high as ever - probably because the public sees he has balls? He's a loyal and faithful husband. He also has a 'normal' job like the public.

Harry and Meghan’s popularity had fallen:

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/19/meghan-harry-oprah-favorability-poll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it interesting that they still use their titles, are upset that Archie wasn't made a prince, and yet cry about how toxic the whole family is? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Titles are his, by birth. No less his than any of the other made up titles they honor.

I understand that's why he still HAS titles. What I am asking is why are they still using them publicly if they despirse so much the institution the titles represent.

H&M: "The BRF is toxic and racist and hates us."
Also H&M: "Please call us by our BRF titles at all times."

Again, cause they're his. May have associations that tie to his identity, despite the flawed system. Not my decision to judge. Or yours.

It’s hypocritical, whether you like it or not.

It's really not but okay.

We don't use titles in this country. They are at best like nicknames. But they carry no weight and should not be used here. He can use Harry Windsor / MB or Harry Sussex if he wants to live here.

Fluff title and he knows it. But if it furthers a positive mission, I have no beef with it.