s/o New understanding of Harry & Meghan

[Anonymous]

Personally I think Meghan doesn’t want to take the kids to the UK bc there are technically custody of the sitting monarch not H&M, and the USA is extrajudicial on that. It’s weird but their kids don’t actually belong to them in the UK. They belong to the monarch bc they are in the line of succession for now, however remotely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My complaint with Meghan is not that she was lying, it's that she knew what she was getting into, so stfu. It's like going to a music festival and then issuing a press release complaining that all the loud music and drinking made it hard for you to sleep.

The royal family is very well known to be bonkers, co trolling and grossly unfair to second sons.

I think her main complaint is that they didn't change ON HER BEHALF. which duh, of course they won't.

I don’t think she expected the racism attack that she received nor the lack of support of the BRF press. And on top of that, no security detail for her or her children.

Who, what, when, where, why? Surely there is abundant proof of hundreds of incidents to support all of this.

Look up “niggling worry about this engagement picture”. That’s just one of several.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seldom comment on the BRF threads. But there is an important point a lot of people missed about that Oprah interview. M&H implied (and in fact basically got Oprah to say) that the reason their kids did not have prince and princess titles was racism because Meghan is biracial. This was a flat out lie and they knew it. The reason is to do with a pre-existing regulation whereby only grandchildren of the sitting monarch have prince & princess titles. The children of Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew’s grandchildren, lacked royal titles for the exact same reason. And indeed, when Charles ascended that generation received their titles and they knew all along they would.

This was race baiting of the lowest and most despicable order and they deserve to be shunned for it.

You misunderstand. WHEN CHARLES TOOK THE THRONE, Archie is entitled to be a prince as the grandchild of the sitting monarch. But

The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

They DID change the rules so that Harry's kids wouldn't be HRH Prince/Princess

No, they said nothing of the kind in the interview. And their kids are prince/princess now, not excluded at all, which was always going to be the case.

Regardless of the title, BRF didn’t want to give them security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seldom comment on the BRF threads. But there is an important point a lot of people missed about that Oprah interview. M&H implied (and in fact basically got Oprah to say) that the reason their kids did not have prince and princess titles was racism because Meghan is biracial. This was a flat out lie and they knew it. The reason is to do with a pre-existing regulation whereby only grandchildren of the sitting monarch have prince & princess titles. The children of Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew’s grandchildren, lacked royal titles for the exact same reason. And indeed, when Charles ascended that generation received their titles and they knew all along they would.

This was race baiting of the lowest and most despicable order and they deserve to be shunned for it.

You misunderstand. WHEN CHARLES TOOK THE THRONE, Archie is entitled to be a prince as the grandchild of the sitting monarch. But

The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

They DID change the rules so that Harry's kids wouldn't be HRH Prince/Princess

No, they said nothing of the kind in the interview. And their kids are prince/princess now, not excluded at all, which was always going to be the case.

Regardless of the title, BRF didn’t want to give them security.

And still don’t. He’s entitled to it. It’s not his fault he was born to the BRF. And at least provide intel on threats to him and his family which they have also denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seldom comment on the BRF threads. But there is an important point a lot of people missed about that Oprah interview. M&H implied (and in fact basically got Oprah to say) that the reason their kids did not have prince and princess titles was racism because Meghan is biracial. This was a flat out lie and they knew it. The reason is to do with a pre-existing regulation whereby only grandchildren of the sitting monarch have prince & princess titles. The children of Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew’s grandchildren, lacked royal titles for the exact same reason. And indeed, when Charles ascended that generation received their titles and they knew all along they would.

This was race baiting of the lowest and most despicable order and they deserve to be shunned for it.

You misunderstand. WHEN CHARLES TOOK THE THRONE, Archie is entitled to be a prince as the grandchild of the sitting monarch. But

The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

They DID change the rules so that Harry's kids wouldn't be HRH Prince/Princess

No, they said nothing of the kind in the interview. And their kids are prince/princess now, not excluded at all, which was always going to be the case.

Regardless of the title, BRF didn’t want to give them security.

The family had security. When they asked for a separate security detail for the baby (Archie), they were told No. Because the baby already had security - the same security is Harry and Meghan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think Meghan doesn’t want to take the kids to the UK bc there are technically custody of the sitting monarch not H&M, and the USA is extrajudicial on that. It’s weird but their kids don’t actually belong to them in the UK. They belong to the monarch bc they are in the line of succession for now, however remotely.

https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-does-not-have-legal-custody-over-great-grandchildren/

Not true, that old edict isn’t legally binding and doesn’t apply to current monarchs. And it would be an even bigger pr disaster than Kate’s photoshopping if the King took custody from either of his sons.

[Anonymous]

This comparison of headlines about Meghan v. Kate was my first introduction to Meghan's struggles in the UK, so I was always sort of "on her side" (until the weird non-abdication).

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seldom comment on the BRF threads. But there is an important point a lot of people missed about that Oprah interview. M&H implied (and in fact basically got Oprah to say) that the reason their kids did not have prince and princess titles was racism because Meghan is biracial. This was a flat out lie and they knew it. The reason is to do with a pre-existing regulation whereby only grandchildren of the sitting monarch have prince & princess titles. The children of Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew’s grandchildren, lacked royal titles for the exact same reason. And indeed, when Charles ascended that generation received their titles and they knew all along they would.

This was race baiting of the lowest and most despicable order and they deserve to be shunned for it.

Andrew’s child have the Princess title.

“Her middle names are Elizabeth and Mary, making her full name Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York, which appears on her birth certificate.”

They have them now. They didn’t have them then. Not sure what your source is. H&M’s kids also have them now. The rule comes from the Letters Patent which long predates H&M.

Andrew’s daughters had princess titles because they were the children of the SON of the monarch (QEll). William and Harry, similarly, had Prince titles. Edward’s children had the titles, but their parents chose not to use them. Supposedly Louise has continued to not use the title that she is entitled to use by birth, and her brother can decide how to style his title when he turns 18.

Anne’s children do not have Prince/Prince titles— because she is the daughter of the monarch rather then a son. They don’t have other titles because she and her first husband declined to accept a title for him when they married.

Harry’s children became Prince /Princess when QEll died — and Charles became the monarch. Funny that the BRF published updated titles almost immediately for other members of the family. The BRF didn’t do the same for the Sussex kids for quite some time — changing them only after Lili was christened and the Sussexes publicly used their titles. So one might question why their titles weren’t changed immediately on official palace publications when others were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seldom comment on the BRF threads. But there is an important point a lot of people missed about that Oprah interview. M&H implied (and in fact basically got Oprah to say) that the reason their kids did not have prince and princess titles was racism because Meghan is biracial. This was a flat out lie and they knew it. The reason is to do with a pre-existing regulation whereby only grandchildren of the sitting monarch have prince & princess titles. The children of Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew’s grandchildren, lacked royal titles for the exact same reason. And indeed, when Charles ascended that generation received their titles and they knew all along they would.

This was race baiting of the lowest and most despicable order and they deserve to be shunned for it.

You misunderstand. WHEN CHARLES TOOK THE THRONE, Archie is entitled to be a prince as the grandchild of the sitting monarch. But

The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

They DID change the rules so that Harry's kids wouldn't be HRH Prince/Princess

No, they said nothing of the kind in the interview. And their kids are prince/princess now, not excluded at all, which was always going to be the case.

Regardless of the title, BRF didn’t want to give them security.

And still don’t. He’s entitled to it. It’s not his fault he was born to the BRF. And at least provide intel on threats to him and his family which they have also denied.

Whenever he lives in the UK (or anywhere in the Commonwealth), he will get state security. Canada or wherever will grumble, since they will be paying for it, and it will be a diplomatic problem. But he'll get state security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seldom comment on the BRF threads. But there is an important point a lot of people missed about that Oprah interview. M&H implied (and in fact basically got Oprah to say) that the reason their kids did not have prince and princess titles was racism because Meghan is biracial. This was a flat out lie and they knew it. The reason is to do with a pre-existing regulation whereby only grandchildren of the sitting monarch have prince & princess titles. The children of Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew’s grandchildren, lacked royal titles for the exact same reason. And indeed, when Charles ascended that generation received their titles and they knew all along they would.

This was race baiting of the lowest and most despicable order and they deserve to be shunned for it.

You misunderstand. WHEN CHARLES TOOK THE THRONE, Archie is entitled to be a prince as the grandchild of the sitting monarch. But

The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

They DID change the rules so that Harry's kids wouldn't be HRH Prince/Princess

No, they said nothing of the kind in the interview. And their kids are prince/princess now, not excluded at all, which was always going to be the case.

Regardless of the title, BRF didn’t want to give them security.

BRF wouldn’t give them overseas security in the USA because they left their jobs and the country. The security is a perk of the job. If they’re not working for the crown they pay their own way. Honestly how dare they complain about such a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This comparison of headlines about Meghan v. Kate was my first introduction to Meghan's struggles in the UK, so I was always sort of "on her side" (until the weird non-abdication).

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Nah. The press was awful to Kate for many many years. They took and published shots of her sunbathing topless on vacation, published shots of her skirt flying up exposing her bum, delved into every single aspect of her and her family’s life. She wasn’t spared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think Meghan doesn’t want to take the kids to the UK bc there are technically custody of the sitting monarch not H&M, and the USA is extrajudicial on that. It’s weird but their kids don’t actually belong to them in the UK. They belong to the monarch bc they are in the line of succession for now, however remotely.

https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-does-not-have-legal-custody-over-great-grandchildren/

Not true, that old edict isn’t legally binding and doesn’t apply to current monarchs. And it would be an even bigger pr disaster than Kate’s photoshopping if the King took custody from either of his sons.

Just bc they don’t enforce it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And I’m not getting legal advice from the editor of Majesty magazine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seldom comment on the BRF threads. But there is an important point a lot of people missed about that Oprah interview. M&H implied (and in fact basically got Oprah to say) that the reason their kids did not have prince and princess titles was racism because Meghan is biracial. This was a flat out lie and they knew it. The reason is to do with a pre-existing regulation whereby only grandchildren of the sitting monarch have prince & princess titles. The children of Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew’s grandchildren, lacked royal titles for the exact same reason. And indeed, when Charles ascended that generation received their titles and they knew all along they would.

This was race baiting of the lowest and most despicable order and they deserve to be shunned for it.

You misunderstand. WHEN CHARLES TOOK THE THRONE, Archie is entitled to be a prince as the grandchild of the sitting monarch. But

The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

They DID change the rules so that Harry's kids wouldn't be HRH Prince/Princess

No, they said nothing of the kind in the interview. And their kids are prince/princess now, not excluded at all, which was always going to be the case.

Regardless of the title, BRF didn’t want to give them security.

And still don’t. He’s entitled to it. It’s not his fault he was born to the BRF. And at least provide intel on threats to him and his family which they have also denied.

Whenever he lives in the UK (or anywhere in the Commonwealth), he will get state security. Canada or wherever will grumble, since they will be paying for it, and it will be a diplomatic problem. But he'll get state security.

It’s quite troubling how ready people are to lap up the distortions spread by these two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This comparison of headlines about Meghan v. Kate was my first introduction to Meghan's struggles in the UK, so I was always sort of "on her side" (until the weird non-abdication).

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Here’s a nice shiny new example of how that’s still going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Harry deeply regrets his choices and misses his old life.

HAHAHA! What? You think he's watching this all go down and wishes he were stuck in the midst of it? No.

LOL right? Even Camilla, queen of mess, had to take a break from it all and went on vacation with her blood relatives.

So she can say it wasn’t her who released the story. She needed an alibi.

Can you guys please get your conspiracy theories straight? A second ago it was Harry and Meghan who did it?