Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 2

[Anonymous]

Beyond that - security could have been issued for the child, even temporarily, while they figured out that separate from the HRH thing. I suspect the BRF wanted Meghan to drop the lawsuit as a requirement though and she said ‘no deal’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oprah asked her, so it the title just because that’s how you get him security. And Meghan answered “no it’s his birthright.” So clearly Meghan cares about the title beyond the security piece.

Right. And it wasn't his birthright, at least not yet, so she really didn't understand the structure of the family she married into.

I think it’s you who really doesn’t understand, actually. But hey, don’t let that stop you from criticizing the black lady.

I'm a new poster, but I agree with the PP. American's think that any relation of the royal family gets a title, but it's not necessarily true, and not, as simple as you would expect. Archie is the son of a second born son of the first born son of the queen. That does not make him a prince. Just because Megahn wants her life to read like a storybook doesn't actually make it so. There are books about peerage and titles, she should read them.

Meghan's race has nothing to do with it, she is just ignorant of the title protocol.

Agreed. I started off the day not knowing how the succession of the royal titles work and now I have a better understanding. It sounds like Archie was never entitled to have a title to begin with since he is the great-grandson of the queen. Meghan claiming that they denied him that title which resulted in him not having security is misleading and a bit over the top. Before they made the decision to leave the family, Harry had security already.. why would their baby need a separate one?

All royal children of Harry’s generation had security and that includes his younger cousins -Edwards kids. All the Cambridge children have security. The idea of the ONLY children of a Senior Royal not having security being his children is preposterous. Not to mention the racism element - Harry/Meghan were sent fake anthrax and there’s a man in jail for personally threatening to kill Harry for being a ‘race traitor’.

Again: that’s in line with the letters patent the Queen issued in 2013.

Harry’s kid is not a Cambridge child. He is the child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

If Harry and Meghan wanted a new letters patent issued, they needed to ask for that.

You’re assuming they didn’t. And if they had - the BRF put the black wife and her husband in a dilapidated shack next to a cemetery and refused to send her on tour with proper support. There is no way they’d even be willing to start the conversation on a new letters patent and they know it.

Lol what?

The conversation would be with the Queen, who they repeatedly said had been wonderful to them throughout.

The same Queen courtiers wouldn’t let Harry have meetings with pre-leaving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oprah asked her, so it the title just because that’s how you get him security. And Meghan answered “no it’s his birthright.” So clearly Meghan cares about the title beyond the security piece.

Right. And it wasn't his birthright, at least not yet, so she really didn't understand the structure of the family she married into.

I think it’s you who really doesn’t understand, actually. But hey, don’t let that stop you from criticizing the black lady.

I'm a new poster, but I agree with the PP. American's think that any relation of the royal family gets a title, but it's not necessarily true, and not, as simple as you would expect. Archie is the son of a second born son of the first born son of the queen. That does not make him a prince. Just because Megahn wants her life to read like a storybook doesn't actually make it so. There are books about peerage and titles, she should read them.

Meghan's race has nothing to do with it, she is just ignorant of the title protocol.

Agreed. I started off the day not knowing how the succession of the royal titles work and now I have a better understanding. It sounds like Archie was never entitled to have a title to begin with since he is the great-grandson of the queen. Meghan claiming that they denied him that title which resulted in him not having security is misleading and a bit over the top. Before they made the decision to leave the family, Harry had security already.. why would their baby need a separate one?

He was entitled to have a title once Charles became king, because then he would be the child of a son of the monarch. Right now he is the grandchild of a son of the monarch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beyond that - security could have been issued for the child, even temporarily, while they figured out that separate from the HRH thing. I suspect the BRF wanted Meghan to drop the lawsuit as a requirement though and she said ‘no deal’.

That’s certainly possible.

The question would be how they would pay for the security. They couldn’t have used Sovereign Grant money because Archie didn’t have a title (and so wasn’t entitled to taxpayer-funded security). They needed to have used private wealth, which the Queen does have.

One could say that maybe the Queen should have used her private wealth to give Archie separate security from his parents, from a private security firm. I don’t think she could’ve paid for standard royal security, which is done through the Metropolitan Police Department.

It would’ve needed to have been a totally separate and new arrangement.

[Anonymous]

Well according to this interview the BRF turned on her because she was so popular in Australia. In Finding Freedom, it's mentioned that girls in high school hated her because she was too perfect.

Obviously there is a pattern of people hating Meghan because they can't handle her greatness. :roll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oprah asked her, so it the title just because that’s how you get him security. And Meghan answered “no it’s his birthright.” So clearly Meghan cares about the title beyond the security piece.

Right. And it wasn't his birthright, at least not yet, so she really didn't understand the structure of the family she married into.

I think it’s you who really doesn’t understand, actually. But hey, don’t let that stop you from criticizing the black lady.

I'm a new poster, but I agree with the PP. American's think that any relation of the royal family gets a title, but it's not necessarily true, and not, as simple as you would expect. Archie is the son of a second born son of the first born son of the queen. That does not make him a prince. Just because Megahn wants her life to read like a storybook doesn't actually make it so. There are books about peerage and titles, she should read them.

Meghan's race has nothing to do with it, she is just ignorant of the title protocol.

Agreed. I started off the day not knowing how the succession of the royal titles work and now I have a better understanding. It sounds like Archie was never entitled to have a title to begin with since he is the great-grandson of the queen. Meghan claiming that they denied him that title which resulted in him not having security is misleading and a bit over the top. Before they made the decision to leave the family, Harry had security already.. why would their baby need a separate one?

All royal children of Harry’s generation had security and that includes his younger cousins -Edwards kids. All the Cambridge children have security. The idea of the ONLY children of a Senior Royal not having security being his children is preposterous. Not to mention the racism element - Harry/Meghan were sent fake anthrax and there’s a man in jail for personally threatening to kill Harry for being a ‘race traitor’.

Again: that’s in line with the letters patent the Queen issued in 2013.

Harry’s kid is not a Cambridge child. He is the child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

If Harry and Meghan wanted a new letters patent issued, they needed to ask for that.

You’re assuming they didn’t. And if they had - the BRF put the black wife and her husband in a dilapidated shack next to a cemetery and refused to send her on tour with proper support. There is no way they’d even be willing to start the conversation on a new letters patent and they know it.

Lol what?

The conversation would be with the Queen, who they repeatedly said had been wonderful to them throughout.

The same Queen courtiers wouldn’t let Harry have meetings with pre-leaving?

What are you talking about? Harry said he’s talked more with his grandmother in the past year than in years prior. He hasn’t said one negative thing about the Queen.

[Anonymous]

I know it's been said before, but it's SO weird how much this board hates Meghan. Makes me wonder how you all would've discussed Diana back in her day...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This interview made me hate meghan markle. I had no dog in the fight before it aired. She is terrible.

If you were indifferent to her before the interview, what specifically changed your mind? Just curious.

I agree. She seems very attention seeking, from being suicidal or Oprah interview..What is the point of the this interview? Do the masses really need or want to know all about Harry and Meghan? It seems like nothing more than a PR move to get screen time. They are not at all relevant in US culture and they moved out of the UK so, they don’t care over there either.

I went the opposite. I was pretty indifferent to begin with, and I absolutely loathe the BRF now and feel very sympathetic to her. She could have googled all she wanted about Harry, the monarch, how to curtsey, and it was always going to be a David and Goliath situation. Someone said something to me today in a totally different context that inclusion and belonging are two different things. She may have been included/invited into the royal family but they made it clear she was never going to belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This interview made me hate meghan markle. I had no dog in the fight before it aired. She is terrible.

If you were indifferent to her before the interview, what specifically changed your mind? Just curious.

I agree. She seems very attention seeking, from being suicidal or Oprah interview..What is the point of the this interview? Do the masses really need or want to know all about Harry and Meghan? It seems like nothing more than a PR move to get screen time. They are not at all relevant in US culture and they moved out of the UK so, they don’t care over there either.

I feel like poster after poster has asked this question. I will give what I think is a real answer.

Harry and Meghan, whether you love or hate them, have an enormous platform. This is a fact, it doesn't matter why they have the platform, whether they deserve the platform, or whether anyone thinks they will maintain relevance, the fact remains that they have a platform. They clearly intend to use that platform. I think they will use it to do extensive charitable work and become, essentially, professional fundraisers.

If you want to be something like a celebrity fundraiser, you need to maintain some celebrity. So they I believe will act much like celebrities to amplify their brand and bring attention to causes they champion. And doing an interview like this is a part of that. I think it will kick off a series of real things they will start doing now that the COVID stuff is lifting.

I also think that they are aware and need to make a considerable amount of money to fund their security needs and so some of these endeavors will be linked to bringing in income for them.

Lastly, I think Harry feels personally victimized by the British press and he will use his platform, until the minute people stop listening to him, to drive home the point that the British paps are downright villainous. This is a personal vendetta by a man who lost his mother and saw his wife and child abused by the system. He will not let go of it IMO until the day he dies. I think it is personal for Meghan too and that it has been genuinely difficult to have been asked to be the sacrificial lamb of the BRF and she wants to rob them of the ability to speak about her without expecting a response. Again, this part is personal and will color the rest of their actions.

[Anonymous]

A swastika wearing member of the royal family is now upset that his family is filled with racists. Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This interview made me hate meghan markle. I had no dog in the fight before it aired. She is terrible.

That's a weird reaction to someone saying that she was suicidal.

+1 It's also strange to feel the need to share all your personal thoughts and feelings, as well as your family issues with the world when you say you want privacy.

And, the piece she wrote for NYT about her miscarriage was a little over the top, as well.

I had a miscarriage and was extremely disappointed, but 1 in 4 pregnancies results in miscarriage. Can't imagine writing something like "while holding my first child, I lost my second child." Miscarriages generally aren't sudden events. Drama Queen

Wow. Classy. #ingrainedmisogyny

Just because someone has experienced discrimination does not make them an angel who cannot ever be criticized.

I have no idea what your comment has to do with mine. Going after a woman for being sad about a miscarriage and open about it to try to normalize grief around an event that is usually ignored by society is cruel and below the belt.

I’m not the person who brought up the NYTimes article. I’m simply responding to people accusing anyone who criticizes Meghan in any way, shape, or form of sexism or racism.

I was accusing someone of minimizing miscarriage of internalized misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Clearly M didn't know what she was getting into fully, however I don't doubt that the BRF did little to help. Plus if the timeline is correct as per H & M, H's security was removed BEFORE they officially resigned. That is very confusing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know it's been said before, but it's SO weird how much this board hates Meghan. Makes me wonder how you all would've discussed Diana back in her day...

Did Diana ever lie about what her children were entitled to? Did she claim she knew nothing about the royal family before joining it?

Don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This interview made me hate meghan markle. I had no dog in the fight before it aired. She is terrible.

If you were indifferent to her before the interview, what specifically changed your mind? Just curious.

I agree. She seems very attention seeking, from being suicidal or Oprah interview..What is the point of the this interview? Do the masses really need or want to know all about Harry and Meghan? It seems like nothing more than a PR move to get screen time. They are not at all relevant in US culture and they moved out of the UK so, they don’t care over there either.

I went the opposite. I was pretty indifferent to begin with, and I absolutely loathe the BRF now and feel very sympathetic to her. She could have googled all she wanted about Harry, the monarch, how to curtsey, and it was always going to be a David and Goliath situation. Someone said something to me today in a totally different context that inclusion and belonging are two different things. She may have been included/invited into the royal family but they made it clear she was never going to belong.

I think she would have...and could have achieved quite a few of her stated goals "Commonwealth Outreach", Queen of Woke, etc, but with more time. I honestly don't think the timeline suited our instant gratification mentality. She was worried about life/opportunity passing her by. IMO she should have chilled for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly M didn't know what she was getting into fully, however I don't doubt that the BRF did little to help. Plus if the timeline is correct as per H & M, H's security was removed BEFORE they officially resigned. That is very confusing to me.

It wasn’t. Canada provided security until March 2020, when they resigned. This was well documented.

Here’s one of the many articles that was written about it at the time: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835