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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumour has it Archie is with Jessica Mulroney. WTH is going on?

People Magazine reported it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7G8MH8JkGI/?hl=en


WTH? They clearly weren’t planning on staying in U.K. long.

This has mentioned by me twice already in this thread. People keep skipping over it. To me, it’s huge and says they aren’t discussing anything, merely informing.

I think Meghan and Harry expected the Queen and Prince Charles to roll over and cave to their demands (like they ALWAYS DO). The Firm has bent over backwards to give them everything they’ve asked for. Why should this latest plan be anything different? They underestimated the public backlash for disrespecting the Queen.

I think the Windsors have underestimated the public backlash against them IMO. This is the trending topic in Arabic, Spanish, French, and English globally with more than 80% of the pieces sympathetic to the Sussexes.

Honestly, I don't think they've 'bent over backwards'.

They gave them the same wedding they gave Eugenie. Which means it was standard far for a royal.

They gave them a tiny 4-bedroom house when all the Queen's children are living in massive 20-bedroom castles and Will+Kate have 12-bedrooms between their two homes.

They sent them on tours which is good - but that's also work and Meghan was expected to be the most photographed woman in the royal family without the benefit of a permanent hairdresser/makeup artist or personal dresser. Both of which Camilla and Kate have.

The basically gave the Sussexes what was required nothing more when Meghan/Harry are the stars and crowd-drawers of that family whether they like it or not.

Beyond that, they didn't utilize Meghan at all. She gives brilliant speeches, talks, and can host forums. She could have easily been sent to do UN Women talks with Sophie, had some appearances at refugee camps with WHO (as she's done in her past), and opened up diverse media conversations on network talks.


Instead they shamed her and asked her to be quiet.

All of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: Archie in Canada

I wonder if Meghan and Harry were worried that the Queen demand that Archie remain in U.K.? She has legal custody of those minors in direct line for throne, right?

Harry and Meghan using Archie as leverage?

He's not leverage. Its rumored the Sussexes even took their dogs with them for the six weeks.

Trudeau also made pointed comments about them being welcome in Canada during their stay.

Pretty sure they packed their bags and weren't planning to come back to toxic Britain in 2020.

So Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is home to stay in Canada.

Which I say - good for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumour has it Archie is with Jessica Mulroney. WTH is going on?

People Magazine reported it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7G8MH8JkGI/?hl=en


WTH? They clearly weren’t planning on staying in U.K. long.

To all the pearl-clutchers: didn’t the Cambridges leave an infant George with the Middletons while they went off on a Caribbean vacation? It’s not like Archie was dumped on the doorstep of an orphanage.

They aren’t on vacation. They are ostensibly at home.

This is all so weird. Jess wasn’t with them in their 6 week break. Has she ever spent any time with Archie? It’s not like she’s been a stable member of their family circle like the Middletons with the Cambridge children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: Archie in Canada

I wonder if Meghan and Harry were worried that the Queen demand that Archie remain in U.K.? She has legal custody of those minors in direct line for throne, right?

Harry and Meghan using Archie as leverage?

She does indeed. But how far does that go? (I.e. I could see her have custody of George but Archie is so far back in line)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: Archie in Canada

I wonder if Meghan and Harry were worried that the Queen demand that Archie remain in U.K.? She has legal custody of those minors in direct line for throne, right?

Harry and Meghan using Archie as leverage?

Now that is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Archie in Canada

I wonder if Meghan and Harry were worried that the Queen demand that Archie remain in U.K.? She has legal custody of those minors in direct line for throne, right?

Harry and Meghan using Archie as leverage?

She does indeed. But how far does that go? (I.e. I could see her have custody of George but Archie is so far back in line)

It’s power either way. They were wise to take him off the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumour has it Archie is with Jessica Mulroney. WTH is going on?

People Magazine reported it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7G8MH8JkGI/?hl=en


WTH? They clearly weren’t planning on staying in U.K. long.

OMG they left Archie with Jessica Mulroney? How long are they leaving him with her? Meghan must be so desperate to see him. Why didn’t they bring him with them back to U.K.?

No, nobody desperate to see their 8 month old leaves him in a different country with strangers (to him) for a week just so they can pop home for a bit to make an announcement. She doesn't seem to be very maternal and clearly sees the royal life as completely transactional (hence the negotiating, trademarking, branding, etc.) so it's not surprising that she left her kid.

Do the tabloids pay you people to spread ridiculous speculation, or are you just stupid enough to believe the kind of $h!t they print?

I'm not the one that left my kid 5,000 miles away with strangers. The actions pretty much speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone mentioned post partum depression. I see it with my clients all the time. She seems off since giving birth.

She certainly doesn’t come across as maternal. I wouldn’t have flown 5,000 miles from my 8 month old under any circumstance. She seems to prefer Harry hold him, too.

You have no idea who she prefers hold him. And while I still haven’t left my toddler to go overseas I don’t think that really means anything either. A number of moms in my mom group did that the first year so they could travel and reconnect with the hubs or travel for work. One of the best moms I know went to Australia when her DS was this age for work. Cool it with the mom shaming. It’s quite striking that somehow it’s only a problem that one of Archie’s parents left him in canada.

I nannied for a couple who went overseas for 2 weeks without their baby who wasn't a year old. They were celebrating Dads birthday. Their child was well loved and cared for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumour has it Archie is with Jessica Mulroney. WTH is going on?

People Magazine reported it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7G8MH8JkGI/?hl=en


WTH? They clearly weren’t planning on staying in U.K. long.

This has mentioned by me twice already in this thread. People keep skipping over it. To me, it’s huge and says they aren’t discussing anything, merely informing.

I think Meghan and Harry expected the Queen and Prince Charles to roll over and cave to their demands (like they ALWAYS DO). The Firm has bent over backwards to give them everything they’ve asked for. Why should this latest plan be anything different? They underestimated the public backlash for disrespecting the Queen.

I think the Windsors have underestimated the public backlash against them IMO. This is the trending topic in Arabic, Spanish, French, and English globally with more than 80% of the pieces sympathetic to the Sussexes.

Honestly, I don't think they've 'bent over backwards'.

They gave them the same wedding they gave Eugenie. Which means it was standard far for a royal.

They gave them a tiny 4-bedroom house when all the Queen's children are living in massive 20-bedroom castles and Will+Kate have 12-bedrooms between their two homes.

They sent them on tours which is good - but that's also work and Meghan was expected to be the most photographed woman in the royal family without the benefit of a permanent hairdresser/makeup artist or personal dresser. Both of which Camilla and Kate have.

The basically gave the Sussexes what was required nothing more when Meghan/Harry are the stars and crowd-drawers of that family whether they like it or not.

Beyond that, they didn't utilize Meghan at all. She gives brilliant speeches, talks, and can host forums. She could have easily been sent to do UN Women talks with Sophie, had some appearances at refugee camps with WHO (as she's done in her past), and opened up diverse media conversations on network talks.

Instead they shamed her and asked her to be quiet.

He is a very minor royal at this point now that William has kids. Equal housing would be to William and Kate, not the parents. Going on tour sounds pretty terrible. Megan is the spouse of a minor royal. She is also a new mom. She is very capable and much more warm and charming or so it appears but she probably doesn't have to follow the rules as closely. Hopefully things will lighten up once the Queen passes but it doesn't look like a great life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumour has it Archie is with Jessica Mulroney. WTH is going on?

People Magazine reported it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7G8MH8JkGI/?hl=en


WTH? They clearly weren’t planning on staying in U.K. long.

This has mentioned by me twice already in this thread. People keep skipping over it. To me, it’s huge and says they aren’t discussing anything, merely informing.

I think Meghan and Harry expected the Queen and Prince Charles to roll over and cave to their demands (like they ALWAYS DO). The Firm has bent over backwards to give them everything they’ve asked for. Why should this latest plan be anything different? They underestimated the public backlash for disrespecting the Queen.

I think the Windsors have underestimated the public backlash against them IMO. This is the trending topic in Arabic, Spanish, French, and English globally with more than 80% of the pieces sympathetic to the Sussexes.

Honestly, I don't think they've 'bent over backwards'.

They gave them the same wedding they gave Eugenie. Which means it was standard far for a royal.

They gave them a tiny 4-bedroom house when all the Queen's children are living in massive 20-bedroom castles and Will+Kate have 12-bedrooms between their two homes.

They sent them on tours which is good - but that's also work and Meghan was expected to be the most photographed woman in the royal family without the benefit of a permanent hairdresser/makeup artist or personal dresser. Both of which Camilla and Kate have.

The basically gave the Sussexes what was required nothing more when Meghan/Harry are the stars and crowd-drawers of that family whether they like it or not.

Beyond that, they didn't utilize Meghan at all. She gives brilliant speeches, talks, and can host forums. She could have easily been sent to do UN Women talks with Sophie, had some appearances at refugee camps with WHO (as she's done in her past), and opened up diverse media conversations on network talks.

Instead they shamed her and asked her to be quiet.

Oh, a member of Meghan’s PR team has joined us! Must be sad to have to spin such lies. Meghan’s speeches are word salad jokes in which she mentions herself (I, me, my) countless times. Poor Meghan! Carry on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumour has it Archie is with Jessica Mulroney. WTH is going on?

People Magazine reported it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7G8MH8JkGI/?hl=en


WTH? They clearly weren’t planning on staying in U.K. long.

To all the pearl-clutchers: didn’t the Cambridges leave an infant George with the Middletons while they went off on a Caribbean vacation? It’s not like Archie was dumped on the doorstep of an orphanage.

Nice try, but the Middletons are George's family. Who did they leave Archie with? Her dad? Her sister? Unless her mom is in Canada watching him (and I haven't seen that reported anywhere) that means they left their kid with strangers. Or friends that the kid is not familiar with, at best. That's gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Archie in Canada

I wonder if Meghan and Harry were worried that the Queen demand that Archie remain in U.K.? She has legal custody of those minors in direct line for throne, right?

Harry and Meghan using Archie as leverage?

She does indeed. But how far does that go? (I.e. I could see her have custody of George but Archie is so far back in line)

It’s power either way. They were wise to take him off the board.

Please. The queen doesn’t want custody of their baby who is 7th (?) in like to the throne. GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone mentioned post partum depression. I see it with my clients all the time. She seems off since giving birth.

She certainly doesn’t come across as maternal. I wouldn’t have flown 5,000 miles from my 8 month old under any circumstance. She seems to prefer Harry hold him, too.

I don't see this as highly unusual? I left my newborn to fly 6 hours to another country for a work conference where I had to present. I left baby with spouse and nanny, but in this case, maybe MM trusts her friend, who has three kids of her own, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone mentioned post partum depression. I see it with my clients all the time. She seems off since giving birth.

She certainly doesn’t come across as maternal. I wouldn’t have flown 5,000 miles from my 8 month old under any circumstance. She seems to prefer Harry hold him, too.

You have no idea who she prefers hold him. And while I still haven’t left my toddler to go overseas I don’t think that really means anything either. A number of moms in my mom group did that the first year so they could travel and reconnect with the hubs or travel for work. One of the best moms I know went to Australia when her DS was this age for work. Cool it with the mom shaming. It’s quite striking that somehow it’s only a problem that one of Archie’s parents left him in canada.

If you have to reconnect by leaving your kids home you really need to rethink your lifestyle. I cannot imagine leaving a child under 5-6 home with a nanny. When they are older, maybe but I'd still never do it. Kids only have one child hood. They deserve to travel and have those experiences too. My parents had a nanny and dumped us on grandparents regularly. We don't have a close bond as we knew work, each other and other things were their priority. Its one thing to travel for work, another to reconnect. Mom going to Australia is ok as its work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumour has it Archie is with Jessica Mulroney. WTH is going on?

People Magazine reported it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7G8MH8JkGI/?hl=en


WTH? They clearly weren’t planning on staying in U.K. long.

This has mentioned by me twice already in this thread. People keep skipping over it. To me, it’s huge and says they aren’t discussing anything, merely informing.

I think Meghan and Harry expected the Queen and Prince Charles to roll over and cave to their demands (like they ALWAYS DO). The Firm has bent over backwards to give them everything they’ve asked for. Why should this latest plan be anything different? They underestimated the public backlash for disrespecting the Queen.

I think the Windsors have underestimated the public backlash against them IMO. This is the trending topic in Arabic, Spanish, French, and English globally with more than 80% of the pieces sympathetic to the Sussexes.

Honestly, I don't think they've 'bent over backwards'.

They gave them the same wedding they gave Eugenie. Which means it was standard far for a royal.

They gave them a tiny 4-bedroom house when all the Queen's children are living in massive 20-bedroom castles and Will+Kate have 12-bedrooms between their two homes.

They sent them on tours which is good - but that's also work and Meghan was expected to be the most photographed woman in the royal family without the benefit of a permanent hairdresser/makeup artist or personal dresser. Both of which Camilla and Kate have.

The basically gave the Sussexes what was required nothing more when Meghan/Harry are the stars and crowd-drawers of that family whether they like it or not.

Beyond that, they didn't utilize Meghan at all. She gives brilliant speeches, talks, and can host forums. She could have easily been sent to do UN Women talks with Sophie, had some appearances at refugee camps with WHO (as she's done in her past), and opened up diverse media conversations on network talks.

Instead they shamed her and asked her to be quiet.

He is a very minor royal at this point now that William has kids. Equal housing would be to William and Kate, not the parents. Going on tour sounds pretty terrible. Megan is the spouse of a minor royal. She is also a new mom. She is very capable and much more warm and charming or so it appears but she probably doesn't have to follow the rules as closely. Hopefully things will lighten up once the Queen passes but it doesn't look like a great life.

Harry is still 6th in line for the throne and Williams kids are in pre-school. If they want to send Charlotte out to give a talk on the economic impacts of coal mining, by all means. Send her on.

Equal housing or even basic housing wasn't given. With four bedrooms they couldn't even host more than one set of friends or have a live-in nanny. And that's just with one kid. Yes, these are rich people's problems but it shows pettiness that the royal family set them up like this.