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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

How exactly does one “fail” as a royal? It’s not a meritocratic system.

Fail = living in exile, in this instance self-imposed.

They're unpatronaging, bowing out. Unroyaling themselves. Failures as royals.

If they wanted to go make their lives in private, that would be one thing. But this is not an auspicious way to about doing that

I don’t think that moving to America, which is home for MM, is typically what people think of when they say “living in exile.” Not exactly the island of Elba.

[Anonymous]

They’ll endure like the Obamas. A Netflix deal, a few cookbooks, on the boards of a few charities from land mines to children’s and women’s issues. They’ll be so fine and no one in DCUM land needs to fret over it.

[Anonymous]

Harry needs a divorce lawyer, stat! His wife is a succubus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’ll endure like the Obamas. A Netflix deal, a few cookbooks, on the boards of a few charities from land mines to children’s and women’s issues. They’ll be so fine and no one in DCUM land needs to fret over it.

ok thx i'll stop fretting about poor Meghan now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't see the big deal in all of this.

Harry is now 6th in line to the throne. An absolutely catastrophic event would have to happen for him to take the throne. Why shouldn't he and Meghan get to live their own lives?

It'd be different if William hadn't yet had kids and Harry was still 4th in line.

Again, the issue is that they want all of the trappings of royal life ($$ in funding from Prince Charles estate, taxpayer funded Frogmore Cottage, royal protection officers, all the pomp and fawning), without any of the responsibilities.

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

How exactly does one “fail” as a royal? It’s not a meritocratic system.

Fail = living in exile, in this instance self-imposed.

They're unpatronaging, bowing out. Unroyaling themselves. Failures as royals.

If they wanted to go make their lives in private, that would be one thing. But this is not an auspicious way to about doing that

There are so many examples:

Edward who abdicated - lived in exile and struggled to keep up the lifestyle to which he was born

Fergie - same

Andrew - enough said

even Beatrice and Eugenie - they WANTED to be working royals, but the public don't really care for them (probably because they aren't attractive) so they are not

None of those situations are analogous. Edward and Fergie were before the modern internet and social media. They had no way to capitalize on their fame like Harry and Meghan. Beatrice and Eugenie don't seem that bright, well-educated, or interested in the rest of the world. They are also not nearly as well-known or popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't see the big deal in all of this.

Harry is now 6th in line to the throne. An absolutely catastrophic event would have to happen for him to take the throne. Why shouldn't he and Meghan get to live their own lives?

It'd be different if William hadn't yet had kids and Harry was still 4th in line.

Again, the issue is that they want all of the trappings of royal life ($$ in funding from Prince Charles estate, taxpayer funded Frogmore Cottage, royal protection officers, all the pomp and fawning), without any of the responsibilities.

Good luck with that.

Wow I guess he should just completely abandon his family (only way to end his connection to “royal life” and “pomp”) to make you happy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except they are not. They are a joke; to them financial independence means giving up 5% of the funding they are given. The other 95% is from their father; and that estate is tied to him being the Prince of Wales. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with taxpayer money, so they should be paying that back. Even Harry's trust is his mother's money, and SHE got that from her divorce settlement from Charles.

They are not financially independent whatsoever and have no plans of being so.

That could apply to a lot of people we consider financially independent and even those that say they are self-made: Michael Dell, Elon Musk, Trump and his children - maybe not all of these to the extent of Diana's estate, but no one would call any of those people not financially independent.

None of them are announcing to (great fanfare) about their supposed financial independence.

You didn't read their announcement. They are "working toward" financial independence. They don't claim to already have it. They absolutely do have plans to achieve it. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

How exactly does one “fail” as a royal? It’s not a meritocratic system.

Fail = living in exile, in this instance self-imposed.

They're unpatronaging, bowing out. Unroyaling themselves. Failures as royals.

If they wanted to go make their lives in private, that would be one thing. But this is not an auspicious way to about doing that

There are so many examples:

Edward who abdicated - lived in exile and struggled to keep up the lifestyle to which he was born

Fergie - same

Andrew - enough said

even Beatrice and Eugenie - they WANTED to be working royals, but the public don't really care for them (probably because they aren't attractive) so they are not

None of those situations are analogous. Edward and Fergie were before the modern internet and social media. They had no way to capitalize on their fame like Harry and Meghan. Beatrice and Eugenie don't seem that bright, well-educated, or interested in the rest of the world. They are also not nearly as well-known or popular.

You're agreeing. Capitalizing on fame by way of social media is celebrity, not royalty. It's not being a successful royal. It's being a successful celebrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except they are not. They are a joke; to them financial independence means giving up 5% of the funding they are given. The other 95% is from their father; and that estate is tied to him being the Prince of Wales. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with taxpayer money, so they should be paying that back. Even Harry's trust is his mother's money, and SHE got that from her divorce settlement from Charles.

They are not financially independent whatsoever and have no plans of being so.

That could apply to a lot of people we consider financially independent and even those that say they are self-made: Michael Dell, Elon Musk, Trump and his children - maybe not all of these to the extent of Diana's estate, but no one would call any of those people not financially independent.

None of them are announcing to (great fanfare) about their supposed financial independence.

You didn't read their announcement. They are "working toward" financial independence. They don't claim to already have it. They absolutely do have plans to achieve it. Good grief.

Oh yes, I'm sure they do have plans to give up 95% of the income they currently receive for doing nothing lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

How exactly does one “fail” as a royal? It’s not a meritocratic system.

Fail = living in exile, in this instance self-imposed.

They're unpatronaging, bowing out. Unroyaling themselves. Failures as royals.

If they wanted to go make their lives in private, that would be one thing. But this is not an auspicious way to about doing that

There are so many examples:

Edward who abdicated - lived in exile and struggled to keep up the lifestyle to which he was born

Fergie - same

Andrew - enough said

even Beatrice and Eugenie - they WANTED to be working royals, but the public don't really care for them (probably because they aren't attractive) so they are not

None of those situations are analogous. Edward and Fergie were before the modern internet and social media. They had no way to capitalize on their fame like Harry and Meghan. Beatrice and Eugenie don't seem that bright, well-educated, or interested in the rest of the world. They are also not nearly as well-known or popular.

You're agreeing. Capitalizing on fame by way of social media is celebrity, not royalty. It's not being a successful royal. It's being a successful celebrity.

I thought you were arguing that they'd live in exile and be unable to maintain their luxurious lifestyle, as Edward and Fergie failed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except they are not. They are a joke; to them financial independence means giving up 5% of the funding they are given. The other 95% is from their father; and that estate is tied to him being the Prince of Wales. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with taxpayer money, so they should be paying that back. Even Harry's trust is his mother's money, and SHE got that from her divorce settlement from Charles.

They are not financially independent whatsoever and have no plans of being so.

That could apply to a lot of people we consider financially independent and even those that say they are self-made: Michael Dell, Elon Musk, Trump and his children - maybe not all of these to the extent of Diana's estate, but no one would call any of those people not financially independent.

None of them are announcing to (great fanfare) about their supposed financial independence.

You didn't read their announcement. They are "working toward" financial independence. They don't claim to already have it. They absolutely do have plans to achieve it. Good grief.

All they plan to give up in the future is 5% of funding they receive from their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No way the Queen will allow them to merch and line their pockets with profits from hocking the Sussex name. No way.

I can’t believe there are people on here who think they are planning on selling actual merchandise with Sussex on it. That’s not how any of this works...for any celebrity save Donald Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

How exactly does one “fail” as a royal? It’s not a meritocratic system.

Fail = living in exile, in this instance self-imposed.

They're unpatronaging, bowing out. Unroyaling themselves. Failures as royals.

If they wanted to go make their lives in private, that would be one thing. But this is not an auspicious way to about doing that

There are so many examples:

Edward who abdicated - lived in exile and struggled to keep up the lifestyle to which he was born

Fergie - same

Andrew - enough said

even Beatrice and Eugenie - they WANTED to be working royals, but the public don't really care for them (probably because they aren't attractive) so they are not

None of those situations are analogous. Edward and Fergie were before the modern internet and social media. They had no way to capitalize on their fame like Harry and Meghan. Beatrice and Eugenie don't seem that bright, well-educated, or interested in the rest of the world. They are also not nearly as well-known or popular.

You're agreeing. Capitalizing on fame by way of social media is celebrity, not royalty. It's not being a successful royal. It's being a successful celebrity.

I thought you were arguing that they'd live in exile and be unable to maintain their luxurious lifestyle, as Edward and Fergie failed to do.

You're talking to different people. I gave the examples of what it means to fail at being royal.

Maybe they will be able to capitalize on being celebrities; I doubt either the BRF or the public will allow them to monetize royal status.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that they announce this "impulsively"...the day before Kate's birthday. Man, they really cannot stand anyone else being the center of attention.