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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate has a sister. Hammer head Harry choose the divorcee

Oh we know. The second wisteria sister zoomed on Harry like a shark post-2011. He told her no.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2008197/Theres-Pippa-Middleton-fling-says-100-cent-single-Prince-Harry-Royal-family.html?ITO=1490

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why it's a surprise to anyone that Harry and Meghan felt unsupported by the BRF. The Queen has consistently failed to understand the emotional needs of anyone in her family, with truly devastating effects: Margaret, Charles, Diana, and now Harry and Meghan. She's all duty and stoicism, but those admirable attributes come with a real blind spot toward others. Because she has such power over her family members' personal lives, this causes repeated crises in the BRF.

I like and admire the Queen, but gosh, you'd think she'd learn by now to listen and take seriously when her loved ones express real human, emotional needs.

I don't know how true to life this was, but there's an episode of the new season of The Crown where the Queen goes to a mining community in Wales after a mining disaster kills over 100 schoolchildren. She basically admits to someone in that episode that she lacks the capacity for empathy.

What is true about that disaster is that she herself had to be forced to visit, much like when Princess Diana died and she was silent for a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I haven’t read through most of the pages here, but I DID read exactly this. On Twitter somewhere. I hope you are correct. Because that idea is gross and it didn’t seem like them, but the whole thing is shocking so...

The Sussex Foundation trademarked using its logo/name on tons of merch like hats, tshirts, blankets, jewelry etc. true information.

Well, sort of. "Sussex Royal" has been trademarked. What they'll use it for is another question. The trademarking isn't in itself nefarious - one reason to register a trademark is to stop others using it. So now, if someone else stamps Sussex Royal on a piece of junk, they can sue them for it.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, they will leave to live a regular, financially independent life. She will pick up a job at local Walmart. He will drive a truck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are Americans so taken with this? I would like to hear from some British citizens about what it means for England. It does seem like a balsy move.

The British press and public response is not flattering. Mostly over the issue of funding and security costs.

Some of the posters on here get it. There is a major element of duty and obligation that comes with being a member of the royal family, namely a working member. It's symbolic. And it's governed by its rules and expectations on what you will and will not do, what you will and will not say (to remain as impartial as possible) and how you relate to others around you. Cherry picking isn't sitting down well as it's also not realistic. Remember all the flak at the onset of the Trump administration surrounding Melania Trump and how she wasn't doing anything and holed up in Trump tower at enormous security cost? It's a similar response.

The Queen has other grandchildren who are not working members and don't receive allowances or security detail. This pair needs to make a firm decision and go one way or the other, and not try to forge a third way because there's no third way when it comes to funding and security costs. They have also not handled this announcement well, apparently. There's a proven history of them making these kinds of announcements in rather self-absorbed ways. Not alerting the palace in advance, for example. Or in the past, announcing the pregnancy on the day of Beatrice's wedding. As much as I want to give them the benefit of doubt they have come across as very self-absorbed rather than pragmatic. Why this big drama announcement instead of waiting a few more months and having many more meetings with the Palace and courtiers about the future? Who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why it's a surprise to anyone that Harry and Meghan felt unsupported by the BRF. The Queen has consistently failed to understand the emotional needs of anyone in her family, with truly devastating effects: Margaret, Charles, Diana, and now Harry and Meghan. She's all duty and stoicism, but those admirable attributes come with a real blind spot toward others. Because she has such power over her family members' personal lives, this causes repeated crises in the BRF.

I like and admire the Queen, but gosh, you'd think she'd learn by now to listen and take seriously when her loved ones express real human, emotional needs.

I don't know how true to life this was, but there's an episode of the new season of The Crown where the Queen goes to a mining community in Wales after a mining disaster kills over 100 schoolchildren. She basically admits to someone in that episode that she lacks the capacity for empathy.

What is true about that disaster is that she herself had to be forced to visit, much like when Princess Diana died and she was silent for a week.

You do know the Crown is fiction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Americans so taken with this? I would like to hear from some British citizens about what it means for England. It does seem like a balsy move.

I am taken with it because of all the monarchies, the British Monarchy had been the most functional. Despite its skeletons, like many families have, it was a symbol of duty and honor. I'll allow, some of it may be in my own way of viewing it in my head, but these people like Markle, and Diana before her, appear to have no idea of the significance of the concept of what it means to be born to that privilege, because it also has a duty component.

I don’t blame Diana for not wanting to play second fiddle to a mistress.

I think it is more complex than that. If the marriage had worked and Diana was able to grow into the role, I am pretty certain Charles wouldn't have felt the draw back to Camilla. But Diana was just not good at being a royal, (and she seemed a little crazy) and Camilla naturally must have provided a place of comfort for Charles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why it's a surprise to anyone that Harry and Meghan felt unsupported by the BRF. The Queen has consistently failed to understand the emotional needs of anyone in her family, with truly devastating effects: Margaret, Charles, Diana, and now Harry and Meghan. She's all duty and stoicism, but those admirable attributes come with a real blind spot toward others. Because she has such power over her family members' personal lives, this causes repeated crises in the BRF.

I like and admire the Queen, but gosh, you'd think she'd learn by now to listen and take seriously when her loved ones express real human, emotional needs.

I don't know how true to life this was, but there's an episode of the new season of The Crown where the Queen goes to a mining community in Wales after a mining disaster kills over 100 schoolchildren. She basically admits to someone in that episode that she lacks the capacity for empathy.

What is true about that disaster is that she herself had to be forced to visit, much like when Princess Diana died and she was silent for a week.

You do know the Crown is fiction

NP: Yes, but based on the biographies and information revealed by former royal family members (King Edward had a good one), aides, and courtiers.

Even if we didn't have that - its easy to look back on the Queen's biggest moments and see an inability to broadcast empathy.

After Diana's death (and the Queen was dragged kicking-and-screaming back from Balmoral in Scotland) - she might as well have been having her teeth pulled when announcing how sorry she was over Diana's death. And don't tell me she was taking care of William and Henry. That duty fell to Tiggy Legge-Bourke (Charles' nanny and supposed girlfriend) plus Charles himself.

Contrast to this message after the Australia wildfires -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Americans so taken with this? I would like to hear from some British citizens about what it means for England. It does seem like a balsy move.

I am taken with it because of all the monarchies, the British Monarchy had been the most functional. Despite its skeletons, like many families have, it was a symbol of duty and honor. I'll allow, some of it may be in my own way of viewing it in my head, but these people like Markle, and Diana before her, appear to have no idea of the significance of the concept of what it means to be born to that privilege, because it also has a duty component.

I don’t blame Diana for not wanting to play second fiddle to a mistress.

I think it is more complex than that. If the marriage had worked and Diana was able to grow into the role, I am pretty certain Charles wouldn't have felt the draw back to Camilla. But Diana was just not good at being a royal, (and she seemed a little crazy) and Camilla naturally must have provided a place of comfort for Charles.

Comfort to Charles? He wasn't at all 'uncomfortable'. He'd been PoW since he was a child and has had everything he ever wanted.

Don't try to gloss over the fact that Charles was banging Camilla TEN YEARS before he married Diana.

Diana was an excellent Princess of Wales, the most popular member in the BRF, and is still mourned to this day.

[Anonymous]

I liked this quote from the British Mumsnet site as it describes this thread perfectly:

"But, even bad publicity will be good for H&M because it feeds into their 'persecuted outsiders' image which is going down so well with the US celeb circuit."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cant imagine all this back and forth between Doria in CA, Canada, and UK is good for Archie.
And once he's like 2 or 3yrs old, won't they need to find permanent residence so the kid can start preschool?

Nah, he's going to grow up as a citizen of the world..

Poor kid.

And no relationship with William’s kids. Nor the other young royals’ kids (Zara’s, Peter’s and future children of Eugenie and Beatrice). See what one toxic person can do to a family? Archie will grow up in a shallow world.

Anyone who has had a narc/high conflict person marry in will recognize the pattern. It is sad for Archie. He will grow up very isolated. Not only does Meghan seem to want to isolate him from his family but they are really BURNING bridges.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't be surprised if Meghan went back into her career and Harry found a charity to run. I'm not surprised by their announcement, but I do think they absolutely should've told the family first. I'm the black sheep of my family, the only one who lives out of state. My mom moved a mile away from my grandparents and she thought that was far lol.

I hope Meghan and Harry have a wonderful life together. I don't think they're going to profit from the royal name, I feel like they are trying to distance themselves from them as much as they can. They fell in love with each other, not the titles/jobs. They've made a decision that works for them. Hope they do well!

[Anonymous]

I am a Brit and I think good for them frankly.
None of us have any idea what the internal wranglings are like in the Palace and even my vaguest understanding is that the courtiers who work in the Palace are actually the worst people to deal with because of stuffiness and protocol. Who needs that its not 1950 and its ridiculous that they should be wrapped up in it too. They being H&M.
I disagree that they should have had the announcement approved - it would never have been released if they'd run it past the Palace. Never.

And those talking about Diana. You need to remember that she was 19 years old, not mid-30s, not already famous and independent. There is really zero comparison other than the fact they were both treated badly by the press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why it's a surprise to anyone that Harry and Meghan felt unsupported by the BRF. The Queen has consistently failed to understand the emotional needs of anyone in her family, with truly devastating effects: Margaret, Charles, Diana, and now Harry and Meghan. She's all duty and stoicism, but those admirable attributes come with a real blind spot toward others. Because she has such power over her family members' personal lives, this causes repeated crises in the BRF.

I like and admire the Queen, but gosh, you'd think she'd learn by now to listen and take seriously when her loved ones express real human, emotional needs.

I don't know how true to life this was, but there's an episode of the new season of The Crown where the Queen goes to a mining community in Wales after a mining disaster kills over 100 schoolchildren. She basically admits to someone in that episode that she lacks the capacity for empathy.

What is true about that disaster is that she herself had to be forced to visit, much like when Princess Diana died and she was silent for a week.

You do know the Crown is fiction

Of course, but the Queen herself has said that not visiting sooner is one the biggest regrets of her reign. And she goes there every year since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean this with the utmost respect: Why do this now and not wait until Charles is king? It seems needlessly cruel to do to the Queen at her advanced age.

Because then William will control the Duchy of Cornwall, and to whom it provides income and how much. Plus they might have missed their window to capitalize on their fame. The Queen could live another 10 years.