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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lovely timing. What with Australia and all.

Timing was about Kate's birthday. Meghan seems to have a fixation.

Kate was a snotty SIL who did nothing to welcome Meghan. Didn't throw her an engagement party, bridal shower/hen do, or baby shower.

She refused to even meet with Meghan until Harry proposed.

Then after Meghan was constantly derided and attacked in comparison to her for two years, she said nothing.

Happy Birthday to Kate.

[Anonymous]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/prince-harry-meghan-markle-traveled-180128613.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tL3NlYXJjaD9mcj1tY2FmZWUmdHlwZT1EMjExVVM3MTRHMCZwPWhhcnJ5K2FuZCttZWdoYW4&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEAQgN6rB-eTF5bs196MEpaCVzCuMTbSnzCQUMJogyJ9EugFAF_DIK0rRAqqfVL4Nz19IhC3KmT4mBdvVLZzsFBJkkKGiUEqNmdjetMoNj8WLooxKEeF6o1VK44o8lv9vQeVI4fmQSOEeVcmPnbEZK6MzYejE2u-O8Jw98qalsvH

Wow! They left Archie in Canada to do this. That is how quickly they plan to be back there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Royal Marines are publicly backing Prince Harry. That family REALLY f'ed it up.



Contrast to when Prince Andrew stepped in his sh*t and they asked that he be removed from office.

The link doesn't say anything. It neither affirms nor condemns Harry.

Oh trust me, the Royal Marines saying they're not asking their Captain General to stand down and are siding by him is a clear choice.

In contrast the Grenadier Guards have frozen Andrew out and given quotes about how mommy pushed him into the position in the first place.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grenadier-guards-didnt-want-prince-andrew-to-be-their-colonel-snx8vcbj9

[Anonymous]

Megan's friends and family betrayed her... she has good reason to cut them off. They are entitled to have a life. He is 5th, in line and realistically has no change of being king. Just going to events every day sounds miserable. He should move on with his life. He was the spare, has been replaced with more spares so there really isn't a place for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

Nice try, but their website is quite detailed.

Only the part about the sovereign grant. Everything else is vague, and they explicitly state that they have to work out the particulars and will share them in due course.

Their website explicitly states that they are not giving up the other 95%.

It doesn't. It is silent on that.

NP here. It DOES explicitly state that they are relinquishing the sovereign grant, so I think its safe to assume they'd have mentioned it if they planned to give up their Duchy money as well.

No, it is not same to assume that unless you want to assume the worst. They do say they want to work toward financial independence and that the particulars need to be determined. A fair assumption would at least be neutral if not tip in the other direction if based on the actual words they did use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this faux outrage from the DCUM set where it's standard for grandparents to have: 1) Paid for the wedding 2) Given money for the first house 3) Pay substantially for the grandkids activities and schools.

The only thing I agree with the nutso posts about is that Frogmore should no longer be their residence. If/When they are in the UK they should have to stay at general palace lodging. They shouldn't have to refund anyone for renovations on it, as eventually, it would have had to be renovated for someone. The Queen can now use it as she sees fit.

As far as any income from his father, that's between him and his father. Do you advocate that all children be essentially cut out of their parent's will/life if they don't choose to follow in the family business? Because that's what this is.

If Charles still chooses to fund his son out of his PRIVATE accounts, that's between them. Most aristocratic children don't do anything to "earn" the allowance their families give them, and if you say they do, you're delusional.

Harry and Meghan should not be allowed anything that comes from the public, except security. Which is the same as any former head of state would be entitled to. Otherwise, all of the "Renounce your title! Leave everything!" is just crazy.

Charles makes a big fuss about how he uses his dukedom to support his and his family's royal duties. Considering that (at best), Meghan and Harry are walking away from their royal responsibilities and announced to the whole world that they will be financially independent, then this is no longer about him and his father.

What purpose does Harry serve in the royal duties? His Dad may never be king. And, then he'll be the second son, brother or uncle to the King but never the king. There are plenty of royals to do royal duties. He's a side piece now that he has been replaced as the spare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

Nice try, but their website is quite detailed.

Only the part about the sovereign grant. Everything else is vague, and they explicitly state that they have to work out the particulars and will share them in due course.

Their website explicitly states that they are not giving up the other 95%.

It doesn't. It is silent on that.

NP here. It DOES explicitly state that they are relinquishing the sovereign grant, so I think its safe to assume they'd have mentioned it if they planned to give up their Duchy money as well.

No, it is not same to assume that unless you want to assume the worst. They do say they want to work toward financial independence and that the particulars need to be determined. A fair assumption would at least be neutral if not tip in the other direction if based on the actual words they did use.

We'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 -

You also have no empathy and are reluctant to understand how the Queen was raised and how she was expected to behave in public or what is it like to be in that role where you are under the lens 100% of the time.

She was raised to live by a very specific set of rules and precedence that had governed the monarchy for hundreds of years. When Diana died, she wasn't a member of the royal family. She was a commoner. Precedence dictated that Diana's death would be handled by Diana's family. That is why she initially stood out of it. As you like fiction, there's a very good movie about the Queen during this period.

She has shown herself to be remarkably adaptive and responsive to changes in the world around her. The monarchy changed greatly from the 1990s to today. Hugely. And it's largely because of her.

Yes. Case in point, when that huge fire broke out in the apartment in London, the queen was on the scene before the prime minister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 -

You also have no empathy and are reluctant to understand how the Queen was raised and how she was expected to behave in public or what is it like to be in that role where you are under the lens 100% of the time.

She was raised to live by a very specific set of rules and precedence that had governed the monarchy for hundreds of years. When Diana died, she wasn't a member of the royal family. She was a commoner. Precedence dictated that Diana's death would be handled by Diana's family. That is why she initially stood out of it. As you like fiction, there's a very good movie about the Queen during this period.

She has shown herself to be remarkably adaptive and responsive to changes in the world around her. The monarchy changed greatly from the 1990s to today. Hugely. And it's largely because of her.

Diana was never a commoner. She was born a Lady and she died Diana, Princess of Wales.

Regardless she was the mother of the future king and the second heir to the throne.

The Queen just didn't like her and everyone knew it. The fact that the public forced her to come down, make a speech, and give Diana the full burial rights of a senior royal is a testament to how much she was loved.

The Queen even bowed to her coffin because she was getting way too much heat.

[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'm British, hi! I don't speak for all of us though. Personally, FWIW, I think:

1. It's fair enough that they would want to leave, and in fact many people have been telling them to do just that for ages.
2. I think it was really inappropriate to post their message without having discussed it properly with the Queen and Prince Charles. They essentially work for a (family) firm and just like in any job, it is inappropriate to post something public about your plans to leave before discussing it with your boss.
3. I think their announcement begs many more questions than it answers - what will it mean to be financially independent? How will they be able to carry out royal duties if they also earn money from other sources without compromising the need for royalty not to benefit personally (i.e. I think it would be problematic for them to be "influencers" and do adverts, and then also continue their patronages of certain charities).
4. I generally quite like them, but I think they come across as very whiny and entitled in this whole thing.

I would check out this mumsnet thread (the UK equivalent of DCUM) if you want to see what other Brits are thinking:

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3790218-harry-stepping-down-as-a-royal-family-member?pg=1

I agree with this. I just loved them as a couple until after the wedding. Harry is a grown man and can make his own decisions, but I do find it odd that Meghan just happens to have a history of cutting off family members and close friends; I believe she had a boyfriend when agreeing to meet up with Harry. It appeared that Harry had a great relationship with Will and Kate prior to his marriage. Could be coincidence. But I find it horribly disrespectful that Harry did not talk to his dad and especially the Queen before making the announcement public. They have supported the couple, emotionally and financially since they started dating. Meghan wouldn’t have had the wedding she had if not for the Queen, and she knew on that day what she was signing up for. I don’t begrudge them wanting to follow a different path, but Harry is a prince, has enjoyed the lavish lifestyle his whole life, and he could have handled this in a much kinder and respectful way. It’s just a slap in the face to the Queen, the taxpayers that funded his lifestyle, and his heritage in general. IMO, Meghan is leading this whole thing, but I don’t see how you can make your own way financially, until you repay what you’ve taken advantage of as an adult. Show a little grace and gratitude to your family. I especially thought it rude for them to not spend Archie’s first Christmas with the Queen and family. Meghan’s mom surely would have been welcome. I have to admit that I was a bit pleased when a Canadian restaurant owner refused them Christmas reservations because their presence would disrupt their regular customers. I really don’t believe they want to be treated like normal people with jobs. I’m afraid this might come back and put a crack in their marriage. Harry is very vulnerable right now as he loves his wife and son, but he also owes a huge debt to the Queen and his family.

I agree with this 1000%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Megan's friends and family betrayed her... she has good reason to cut them off. They are entitled to have a life. He is 5th, in line and realistically has no change of being king. Just going to events every day sounds miserable. He should move on with his life. He was the spare, has been replaced with more spares so there really isn't a place for him.

The same place for him now as there was one, two, three years ago.

To be a prince. Not a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

Nice try, but their website is quite detailed.

Only the part about the sovereign grant. Everything else is vague, and they explicitly state that they have to work out the particulars and will share them in due course.

Their website explicitly states that they are not giving up the other 95%.

It doesn't. It is silent on that.

NP here. It DOES explicitly state that they are relinquishing the sovereign grant, so I think its safe to assume they'd have mentioned it if they planned to give up their Duchy money as well.

No, it is not same to assume that unless you want to assume the worst. They do say they want to work toward financial independence and that the particulars need to be determined. A fair assumption would at least be neutral if not tip in the other direction if based on the actual words they did use.

We'll see.

Yes, waiting to see is the exact opposite of making assumptions. Smart decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

Nice try, but their website is quite detailed.

Only the part about the sovereign grant. Everything else is vague, and they explicitly state that they have to work out the particulars and will share them in due course.

Their website explicitly states that they are not giving up the other 95%.

It doesn't. It is silent on that.

NP here. It DOES explicitly state that they are relinquishing the sovereign grant, so I think its safe to assume they'd have mentioned it if they planned to give up their Duchy money as well.

No, it is not same to assume that unless you want to assume the worst. They do say they want to work toward financial independence and that the particulars need to be determined. A fair assumption would at least be neutral if not tip in the other direction if based on the actual words they did use.

We'll see.

Yes, waiting to see is the exact opposite of making assumptions. Smart decision.

They spelled out everything else. They'd have spelled this out too if they had a clue what the F they are doing. They are making this up as they go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Royal Marines are publicly backing Prince Harry. That family REALLY f'ed it up.



Contrast to when Prince Andrew stepped in his sh*t and they asked that he be removed from office.

The link doesn't say anything. It neither affirms nor condemns Harry.

Oh trust me, the Royal Marines saying they're not asking their Captain General to stand down and are siding by him is a clear choice.

In contrast the Grenadier Guards have frozen Andrew out and given quotes about how mommy pushed him into the position in the first place.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grenadier-guards-didnt-want-prince-andrew-to-be-their-colonel-snx8vcbj9

It still doesn't change the point that you linked an image that neither affirms nor condemns Harry's decisions. IT's simply stating that Harry wishes to continue his role with the Royal Marines. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 -

This is unfair. In reality she waited because she didn't want attention to be on her and the royal visit aka a distract, but rather on finding any potentially still alive children in the slurry. She didn't want to disrupt the rescue effort. And when she did visit, it was one of the only times she was unable to hold back emotion and exhibited tears in public. Families there reported to the press that they felt like she had been there "all along" marching in the mud, and described the Queen as emotional and upset.