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

[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

You know you could read the post where the person outright says that.

[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:

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.

I think the tick tock of how this went down posted above shows that they were stymied in their efforts to have this all figure out before going public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Diana was born a commoner. She had a title, but she was not royal - that's what commoners are. Even daughters of earls are commoners.

She lost her HRH when she divorced, making her a commoner again.

This is quite simple because that's how the tradition - which has legal origins and workings - worked.

I do think the Queen did not realize how popular Diana had been or how much expectations had changed at the time of Diana's death. She was doing what she thought was correct, staying out of the funeral affairs because Diana was no longer part of the Royal family. I do know you prefer to hate on the Queen and will never change your mind so there's no point persisting with this.

[Anonymous]

So does any royal family member get to change his legal residency to any country part of the commonwealth? Serious question. How do a Brit and American get to move to Canada permanently, on the fly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct. He has always been sort of floating along - and headstrong Meghan pushed him into making a decision.

Time will tell if that was the right or wrong decision for him.

I do think he comes off as spoiled and ungrateful, though.

[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

You know you could read the post where the person outright says that.

We are actually two different posters. I wrote the post about the Crown being fiction but curious about any rumors that might have inspired the writer. I did not write the post quoted here.

There are two of us clearly intrigued about that episode!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have zero idea of exactly what their relationship is/was. You just hate Kate. You can’t have a sensible conversation because you must insult Kate at every turn. This isn’t about Kate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Diana was born a commoner. She had a title, but she was not royal - that's what commoners are. Even daughters of earls are commoners.

She lost her HRH when she divorced, making her a commoner again.

This is quite simple because that's how the tradition - which has legal origins and workings - worked.

I do think the Queen did not realize how popular Diana had been or how much expectations had changed at the time of Diana's death. She was doing what she thought was correct, staying out of the funeral affairs because Diana was no longer part of the Royal family. I do know you prefer to hate on the Queen and will never change your mind so there's no point persisting with this.

I don't hate her.

I think she's done well as a monarch.

She just sucks as a matriarch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have zero idea of exactly what their relationship is/was. You just hate Kate. You can’t have a sensible conversation because you must insult Kate at every turn. This isn’t about Kate.

...you brought her up nutso.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Diana was born a commoner. She had a title, but she was not royal - that's what commoners are. Even daughters of earls are commoners.

She lost her HRH when she divorced, making her a commoner again.

This is quite simple because that's how the tradition - which has legal origins and workings - worked.

I do think the Queen did not realize how popular Diana had been or how much expectations had changed at the time of Diana's death. She was doing what she thought was correct, staying out of the funeral affairs because Diana was no longer part of the Royal family. I do know you prefer to hate on the Queen and will never change your mind so there's no point persisting with this.

Diana was her grandchildren’s mom. That should have been all that mattered....not technicalities. She messed that up royally. Pun intended.

[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.

Isn't he 6th in line: Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Diana was born a commoner. She had a title, but she was not royal - that's what commoners are. Even daughters of earls are commoners.

She lost her HRH when she divorced, making her a commoner again.

This is quite simple because that's how the tradition - which has legal origins and workings - worked.

I do think the Queen did not realize how popular Diana had been or how much expectations had changed at the time of Diana's death. She was doing what she thought was correct, staying out of the funeral affairs because Diana was no longer part of the Royal family. I do know you prefer to hate on the Queen and will never change your mind so there's no point persisting with this.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Diana was not born a commoner. She was already a member of the aristocracy. There are not just royals and everyone else. Why do you think there is a House of Lords and a House of Commons? Please do some research before making a post and coming across as a complete idiot.

[Anonymous]

Madam Tussaund’s removes Harry and Meghan from the ‘royal family’ section of wax figures! Guess someone there Doesn’t care for them either.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnn.com/style/amp/duke-duchess-sussex-madame-tussauds-removal/index.html

[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:

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.

I think the tick tock of how this went down posted above shows that they were stymied in their efforts to have this all figure out before going public.

And why the need to go public? Just live your life and stfu. They just thrive on attention. I’m pretty saddened because I just loved them as a couple until they became so needy. They hate the tabloids and publicity, but never miss a chance to throw bait out to the paps. Hypocrites both of them.

[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

You know you could read the post where the person outright says that.

We are actually two different posters. I wrote the post about the Crown being fiction but curious about any rumors that might have inspired the writer. I did not write the post quoted here.

There are two of us clearly intrigued about that episode!

Google it, there are a few interesting articles about Aberfan and the Queen's response. I think the part from the Crown that was actually wrong was that she DID cry when she was there. Obviously that whole conversation between her and Wilson was pure speculation on the part of the filmmakers - it made for good viewing though!