Prince Harry & Meghan Lose HRH Titles

Oh, darn!

they won’t use the title isn’t the same is it being removed formally by Letters Patent. I’m curious if that happens because then for all intents they’ll just be regular citizens.

those two assholes have no idea what the just threw down the toilet.

Ha! Ha!

I'm betting they thought they'd still get to be Prince and Duchess...so much for all that merch!

Good. Strip them of rank, titles, and special privileges.

^ And once done, let us all stop talking about them.

If they don't need those titles, we'll take them!

So ol' Meghan is gonna do a Lula Mae Barnes and just be Mrs. Henry Wales.

As I understand it, this is the Diana and Fergie treatment: they still, at least nominally, have titles, but the loss of the HRH represents a huge loss of status.

This place is going to be fucking insufferable for the next few days.

This is the beginning of the end for them. Before they united against a common 'enemy,' the press and the family. Now that that's gone, I think the marriage will fall apart. She won't have the title and he will wake up to certain realities.

HM here has bent over backwards to try to repair the (in my view, quite accurate but not helpful) image of Meghan's unpopularity within the family, and to ensure that backlash isn't attributed to the hostility of the royal family towards her. I'm sure it exists, particularly in the Cambridge home, but that would never have been for public consumption.

In terms of the HRH: Harry was born royal. Does this mean he has voluntarily (read: under pressure), surrendered it entirely, including the HRH he was born with, in exchange for being able to use the Sussex name to cut deals (something I suggested could be a solution on other threads) at his and Meghan's discretion? Or does it mean he's still HRH Prince Harry, technically, but not HRH The Duke of Sussex?

The repayment to the taxpayers is interesting, if it is even feasible within a reasonable amount of time.

Altogether, this isn't much of a win for the Sussexes, except for being able to call themselves Duke and Duchess and use Sussex to make money. They are out completely as working royals, repayment on the renovations to Frogmore means that they aren't going to be able to retain it as a free home base for use when in Britain, and no further taxpayer funds will be spent on them, including for security.

My guess is that Charles will fork over the Frogmore repayment to the Crown Estates' coffers, as well he should. That will leave Harry and Meghan free to go make money.

The Queen's wording is a warning to the rest of the family to behave decently toward them in public, and they'll probably be back for Trooping the Colour, Remembrance Day, etc. But I wouldn't bet on that holding up after the Queen is gone, and William becomes Prince of Wales. He won't forget what Meghan did to the family.

Just the same, Harry has lost some testicular material here.

"I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."

The Queen is throwing her subtle shade with Meghan. This has been in line with her last statement where she used "my family" 9 times. I'm surprised the Sussex's would allow this. I just had a check on Sussex Royal and the site hasn't been updated to drop the HRH. I'm pretty surprised about this TBH.

R2 - I don't think HM issued Letters Patent on Diana's and Fergie's cessation of using HRH. I don't think there's a need to, unless violations occur. Anyone know?

I don't see Meghan obeying anything regarding the title. She will do as she wants, as she always has.

R13, yes, by implication this vindicates some of the tabloid reporting about how angry the family was and how Charles wanted them to repay the cost of renovating Frogmore.

According to Wikipedia, the Queen DID issue Letters Patent on Diana's title days before the divorce was finalised.

She may be in the process of, or have already issued, the same re the Harkles. If she hasn't. there will be further blowback.

LOL.

Queen Liz SMACKDOWN.

They're paying back the money used to refurbish Frogmore. Good for them.

If they want their own lives, then this is the right thing to do by the Queen.

They're still duke and duchess, just not HRH. They're damaged goods, whatever happens.

They now have to lie prostrate whenever in William and Kate’s presence. Nice.

I also picked up on the thinly veiled shade, R13.

That said, in no other circumstances would it be scandal for a thirty something year old married man with a child to move out of his granny’s house and provide for his own.

They will be happy together and this is the best outcome that they have agreed to. They win, you loons lose. They're not moving to LA, they're not divorcing.

YOU. LOONS. LOSE!!!!!!!

THREAD CLOSED!!!!

ALL THREADS ON THIS SUBJECT CLOSED UNTIL THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

OT but why did Meghan decide to leave Archie to Vancouver when she and Harry traveled to London? Who would leave their baby behind when he can be taken with his parents?

Translation :

You're dead to me you gold digging whore!

Betty W.

R19 - No, they aren't. Charles will give Harry the money to pay back the taxpayers. Harry hasn't got liquid assets of 2.5 million unless he liquidates part of his trust fund, and Charles won't let him do that. The public were always told that Harry and Meghan paid for the fixings and furnishings at Frogmore, and then, as we all really knew, it turned out that Charles bought most of that. Harry doesn't have that kind of money. So Harry will still get away with a nice golden parachute, and he and Meghan probably feel that if they never see Frogmore Cottage again, it will be too soon.

As for keeping their "private patronages", there is no such thing. All patronages are given out by the Queen. And I doubt those British patronages will be too interested in the Harkles now that they are not representing the monarchy, only themselves, and can't call them "His Royal Highness, Patron" on their letterhead.

I didn’t predict this when the news about Harry dating Meghan came out. In 20 months all this. Harry is out. Good luck.

This all seems like a big FU to Meghan.

I wish we closed the Trump Impeachment threads--these threads, I can't get enough of!

Provide for his own r23 ?

They'll be the faces of a high profile charity, travel everywhere (thank you stupid donators !) and actually never do any kind of work.

From royal parasite to parasite.

^ It is.

Then there’s that $27 million waterfront mansion the Megster is eying in Vancouver..

I hear they'll be releasing a cover of this classic. I didn't even know M. could sing.

“I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family,” read the statement.”

Feeling a little shady in here.

CNN says Frogmore House is theirs to keep.

[quote]that $27 million waterfront mansion

What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.

But won't they have to pay for the upkeep, servants, and pay the taxes on it?

Princess Anne's children are not HRH nor are Prince Edward's kids. Both Anne & Edward made that request to the Queen,

So Harry not being HRH is OK, as his cousins are not HRH

“OT but why did Meghan decide to leave Archie to Vancouver when she and Harry traveled to London? Who would leave their baby behind when he can be taken with his parents?”

If he isn’t left behind then the child can’t be used as a bargaining chip, duh.

I could definitely see them with a rented place in California somewhere. Maybe a nominal rent on an estate owned by a billionaire friend of sorts. Like $1K a month or something. In a benefactor kind of way.

She had to be (awkwardly) nice to Meghan in the announcement, as a hedge against the spiteful interviews probably to come. Seems to be through gritted teeth though. I wonder if the deal includes some equivalent of an NDA?

Is Meghan still becoming a UK citizen? Or is she still one of us?

They must have gotten a massive payout otherwise it just wouldn't make sense for them to agree to this. Do we know what Diana's settlement was? Was the £20M from the palace or Spencers? H & M probably got something huge and maybe Meghan was like, this will do!

They should have been stripped of HRH. Even if Harry got to keep his HRH since he was born with it, Markle should have been stripped of hers.

With the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, the duke retained HRH, but the duchess was never granted HRH. To address her in formal settings, she was referred to as “Your Grace.”

[quote] I'm surprised the Sussex's would allow this.

1) Oh, [italic]dear.[/italic] It's SUSSEXES.

2) You don't get how this royalty thing works, do you? They dare not criticize the Queen: if they did, they would lose all money forever from Charles.

Neither Anne or Edward are the heir to the throne, so Harry, losing his HRH, as the son of the heir, seems like a big deal.

But, r39, neither Princess Anne's children nor Prince Edward's children are the chidren of the monarch/heir, as is Harry. There's also a difference between being HRH and losing that status and never having been HRH.

Americans really need to get to grips with the concept of succession and the monarch.

They ARE being stripped of their HRH titles, r45. Read the story again.

Still seems as though Harry and Meghan are still much better off financially then the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were.

At least when it comes to $$. Even though they said Wallis Simpson left behind a $50 million dollar estate at her death.

Now will their detractors shut up...shut the fuck up.

[quote] Harry, losing his HRH, as the son of the heir, seems like a big deal.

But when Kate started popping out babies, Harry is no longer an "heir"

Unless the entire family goes down in a plane crash

[quote] Princess Anne's children are not HRH nor are Prince Edward's kids.

Edward's kids ARE legally both HRH--they just do not use the styling, as per the wishes of their parents.

"They must have gotten a massive payout otherwise it just wouldn't make sense for them to agree to this."

Lol, r44. They have absolutely no choice and it's not for them to agree or disagree.

I have been completely indifferent to Meghan and Harry, but occasionally read the stories out of some curiosity, since I used to live in London. What I simply do not understand is what Meghan was expecting? You don't marry a into the royal family and expect any semblance of a normal life. There is no way that his being a prince was part of the attraction for her, so then she sets in motion a plan to strip him of the life of a prince? I just don't get what her end game is in this. I'm not romantic enough to believe that it is all about love, because you can't just fall in love with someone like Prince Harry without recognizing all the baggage that comes with it.

R44 - Charles liquidated his entire portfolio to pay Diana's settlement. Why would the Spencers have paid it?!

I wouldn't trust CNN - American news networks are notoriously poor at deciphering royal code and protocol.

If they have to pay back the renovations on Frogmore, Frogmore isn't "theirs" any more than it is the Queen's: it belongs to the Crown Estates. They can't "have" it to "keep" any more than the Queen can sell it. The government and the monarchy share responsibility for the Crown Estates, and neither "own" it. Therefore, neither can the Sussexes.

Upkeep for the Crown Estates comes from taxpayers. Whether Harry and Meghan never set foot in it again or use it as a base when they visit England, the Sovereign Grant will still be used for its upkeep.

That's why Harry and Meghan have to be seen to pay back the cost of the renovations.

So when is there reality show on E! going to start?

R52, Harry was never the heir anyway, that was William. But, Harry is the son/brother of the heir/monarch, which has a different status from being the niece/nephew/cousin of the monarch.

Really lost them or have they been asked simply not to use them?

[quote] Edward's kids ARE legally both HRH--they just do not use the styling, as per the wishes of their parents.

The Queen decided, with the consent of both Edward and Sophie, that any children the couple might have together would NOT be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but instead be styled as children of an Earl. That makes Prince Edward’s children The Queen’s first male-line descendants not to have royal titles, and in accordance with Her Majesty’s 1960 Order-in-Council, they are the firsts to be allowed the proper use of the Mountbatten-Windsor family name.

Anne's kids are not HRH, but that's not unusual for the children of the daughter of a British monarch. The queen's aunt Mary, the Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood 9and the daughter of George V), also had children who were not HRH.

R44 - "They must have gotten a massive payout otherwise it just wouldn't make sense for them to agree to this."

In some sense, they have: Charles will undoubtedly foot the bill for paying back the taxpayers for the renovation of Frogmore; they get permission to use the name Sussex (without Royal) to make money; and they never have to work for the institution again.

All in all, it's a bit of public humiliation and a slap on the hand, but they'll be all right.

The real interesting bit, to me, is the term "use of" HRH. Unless the Queen issues Letters Patent to the effect that henceforth HRH Prince Harry and Duke of Sussex, will be styled and titled Harry, Duke of Sussex, he's still, to all intents and purposes, HRH Prince Henry Charles Albert David.

It's either a glass half full or half empty, depending on your point of view.

I wonder if the Queen is playing cagey on this because if the Harkles get divorced, they want to leave the door open for an HRH Harry to come back into the fold.

But it still smacks of both ends against the middle. If Harry is still an HRH but just not using the three initials in front of "Duke of Sussex", what's the point?

[quote] The Queen decided, with the consent of both Edward and Sophie, that any children the couple might have together would NOT be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but instead be styled as children of an Earl. That makes Prince Edward’s children The Queen’s first male-line descendants not to have royal titles, and in accordance with Her Majesty’s 1960 Order-in-Council, they are the firsts to be allowed the proper use of the Mountbatten-Windsor family name.

This is from wikipedia:

[quote] Letters patent issued in 1917 assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch.[6] Therefore, all else being equal, James would have been styled as "His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex". However, when his parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes or princesses.[7] Thus, as is customary for the eldest son of an earl, court communications refer to him as Viscount Severn, which is one of his father's subsidiary titles.

Since no Letters Patent were issued changing the rule: even if Edward's children are styled as the children of an earl, in the eyes of British law, they are still HRH and HRH, even if they do not use the titles; and they will have those titles unless and until new Letters Patent are issued.

Even the queen cannot change the law by means of just a press release.

Like many in that age group, they may think they can be far wealthier becoming unrestrained entrepreneurs. We shall see.

Harry has been very foolish. She'll discard him with no thought at all once he's out lived his useful ness, once her full purpose for him has been served.

They are not being stripped of HRH. They simply can’t use HRH. They will be referred to as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but not HRH. For them to be stripped of HRH, the queen would have to issue Letters Patent stating so, which is what happened with Diana and Sarah. They were HRH from the day they married Charles and Andrew, throughout their marriages and even during their separations. They only lost their HRH at the moment when their divorces were final. Their official titles (minus HRH) became Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess if York, which is still Sarah’s title.

R59 - That's what everyone wants to know.

Without those Letters Patent, it's a sham.

Either they are or they aren't.

I haven’t read anything yet about the line of succession. Does this mean Harry is no longer the sixth in line? Also, will he no longer be regent should anything happen to William?

It’s all so interesting.

Well, obviously they cannot use "SussexRoyal" as a brand anymore if they've agreed they are not tio style themselves as royal.

How will they brand themselves?

Will they be called "the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" still, without the HRH, and will they each be addressed as "Your Grace"? Or will they be "Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor," and given no formal term of address whatsoever?

R55, 4 (or just 3?) years ago, MM was a small time working actress with no name recognition and a side hustle as a wannabe Goop. She now has international fame and is poised to cash in. That's what it's about.

R66 I think stripping Harry of his HRH status was never an option. He was born Royal and taking that away opens a pandora's box and it would look petty too. Plus if she takes away Harry's HRH she would most certainly have to do that to Andrew and she will not do that. I also feel like the fact they keep their titles opens the door to one or both of them returning into the royal fold at some future point.

I also found the Queen's statement very, very interesting. The direct reference to Meghan fitting in the family seems forced. It's either something Harry demanded or the Queen did it cover her butt should the couple do a tell-all interview.

[quote] I haven’t read anything yet about the line of succession. Does this mean Harry is no longer the sixth in line?

No, the Queen and Prince Charles cannot do that on their own. That requires an act of Parliament.

R66, you might be right. Everything I am reading is saying that "the couple will not use HRH titles" or "the couple drops HRH titles", but they are allowed to now monetize anyway they see fit as long as it is respectful to the monarchy. Maybe they are keeping them, but just not using? Titles are now Harry, Duke of Sussex/Meghan, Duchess of Sussex similar to Di and Fergie.

R66, it wasn’t the divorce that cost Diana her HRH. The Queen was willing to have her keep it, but Charles (spitefully) insisted that she not be allowed to use it.

R63 - Those Letters Patent from George V in 1917, changed the custom, not the law. It was never submitted to Parliament, never mind voted on nor passed as legislation.

Titles and honours are at the discretion of the Sovereign, not Parliament. She already changed things without resorting to Parliamentary permission when she ended male primogeniture in terms of the Succession. Did anyone see a vote in Parliament in it? Did anyone see a vote in Parliament about Edward's kids' titles, despite the fact that they are "technically" HRHs?

Not.

The only thing Parliament has power over is the direct line of succession. The Sovereign can no longer "name" a successor. If Prince George wants to resign from his position as heir to the throne, THEN the Sovereign has to go through Parliament.

But the titles . . . people are what the Sovereign announces they shall be called, officially instituted by Letters Patent.

If she does't issue Letters Patent removing HRH from Prince Harry, the pair agreeing not to use the initials HRH is just window dressing. And she doesn't need Parliament's approval to do so.

Parliament has enough headaches these days. They'd probably rather be shot at dawn in Parliament Square than get involved with this shit.

Getting to keep HRH but not being allowed to use the title makes no sense. You’re either in or you’re out. By doing this, the royal family left the door open should they come back. Markle wants nothing to do with coming back. She’s done. If they were to divorce and Harry were to come back, he still would be HRH. And if they were to divorce, Markle would automatically would lose her HRH as did Diana and Sarah. But even in divorce, Harry retains HRH.

R72 - You beat me to it. Yes. Frankly, if Harry is out of Britain for a certain amount of time, he cannot serve as a Counsellor of State, as those within six places can do at need, nor as Regent for George if King William dies before Prince George is 18.

With his plans to live, as seems likely, most of the year outside the UK, he might as well give up his place in the line of succession for himself and his descendants.

I wonder if there will be calls for the Queen to issue Letters Patent? Naturally, she doesn't want to "de-royalise" her grandson, although I'm sure she'd be happy to formally "de-royalise" Meghan, but it does rather look meaningless if she doesn't.

Of course, William might be willing to if Charles dies sooner rather than later.

Good for them. I hope they can make it work, but it will be incredibly difficult, especially for him. Meghan has had a normal life. She worked to achieve her career as an actress. He's never had a job, apart from serving in the military. How will he find employment that does not somehow trade in on his Royal Family connections?

I feel sorry for them both, because of the scrutiny from the press and social media, but I may feel sorrier for him. Behind the facade, Harry must have been suffering tremendously since he was a child. First, his parents very publicly feuding and divorce, then the relentless hounding of his mother that led to her death. The mental toll it must have taken on him is indescribable.

Still, I also feel sorry for his father and brother, as well as the Queen. The monarchy will adapt, and she may not be around much longer. But his father and brother must feel incredible sadness and tension between wanting to help Harry, yet still driven by a sense of duty.

Gee, "The Crown" is truer to life than one had expected.

What does all of this mean for Archie???

[quote]So Harry not being HRH is OK, as his cousins are not HRH

Harry is the son, brother and uncle of three future kings. It's a pretty big deal.

There needs to be a public poll in Sussex whether the local people are still happy for the “Duke & Duchess of Sussex” to piggyback off their region’s history while not even representing Britain or Sussex anymore. This may put pressure on Liz to strip them of that ridiculous title.

In the meantime, they should go trademark their second title “The ‘Royal’ Dumbartons” ( Earl of Dumbarton and Countess of Dumbarton). It’s their second title and it fits them far better :)

The statement from the palace said that Harry and Markle would no longer represent the queen. However, they would still continue to represent their private patronages.

First, splitting their time between the U.K. and North America is out and will not happen if they no longer represent the queen. For that reason alone they should lose HRH.

Secondly, how do they keep their patronages if they’re not representing the queen. They won’t even be in the U.K. to do anything for their patrinages...and they only got their patronages in the first place as part of their duties representing the queen. If they no longer represent the queen, then how do they keep their patronage? What could they possibly do for their patronage? They’re gone.

So if Edward;s kids have HRH, why doesn't Anne;s kids have HRH - if it because Anne is the daughter and therefor any kids she has don't get HRH?

What on earth are they going to do for a living? Netflix and Oprah documentaries?

R79 - Archie's issue is unchanged. He doesn't have an HRH, but unless the Queen rescinds Harry's HRH, if Harry dies next week, Archie becomes the Duke of Sussex - as it is a royal dukedom, it carries an automatic HRH. So if the Queen refused to make Archie an HRH, but his father still carries that HRH even if not using it, doesn't that leave the door open for Archie to slide in, anyway?

That's why it is important that the Queen issue those Letters Patent stripping Harry of his HRH. Unless she does, the title issue is still murky. It's too bad she's letting sentiment over Harry cloud her judgement.

[quote]If she does't issue Letters Patent removing HRH from Prince Harry, the pair agreeing not to use the initials HRH is just window dressing.

well it is working for Edward';s kids, so why not Harry?

[quote] Archie's issue is unchanged. He doesn't have an HRH,

So how come Edward;s kids have HRH, but not Harrys kid?

They'll be fine, guys! The Trudeaus, Obamas and Beyonce will provide! Just wait for that Hollywood FLEX, guys!

I think the French had the right idea.

R83 - Yes. The automatic HRH for grandchildren of the Sovereign is ONLY in the male line. The Queen offered Anne's husband a title, and he refused. As children take their titles from their father, not their mother, Anne's children are, therefore, Mr Peter Phillips and Mrs Zara Phillips Tindall.

Princess Margaret was in the same position when she married Tony Armstrong-Jones (no title). He accepted a title from the Queen of Earl of Snowdon), so their two children had subsidiary titles. The boy was Viscount Lynley (now the 2nd Earl Snowdon after his father's death), and the girl, Lady Sarah Chatto (Chatto is her husband's name).

My take is they got nothing if what they wanted like titles, Frogmore (without paying), security etc and the exchange was a huge lump sum payment to walk away. I think Meghan Markle was signaling a payoff when she was looking at $40 million mansions.

It doesn't say they are losing their titles, just that they will no longer be using them. The details are important.

It sounds like the option is open if they wish to be full senior Royals again they can use them again publicly.

And SussexRoyal was always designated as a brand for their nonprofit organization, not for whatever they are planning on their own as non senior Royals.

I'm glad they will pay back the Frogmore Cottage refurbishments because the hyperventilating over it was ridiculous. Of course, no one will give them credit for it or change their opinions of them but it will be one less bully stick the horrid British press can beat them with.

R87 - Archie is the GREAT-grandchild of the Sovereign, NOT the grandson!!!! The automatic HRH STOPS WITH THE GRANDCHILDREN OF THE SOVEREIGN IN THE MALE LINE.

Archie and Prince William's kids are GREAT-grandchildren of the Sovereign. GREAT-grandchildren,, NOT grandchildren. The Queen had to issue Letters Patent in order to make William's kids (also GREAT-grandchildren, not grandchildren) HRHs and did so because they are in the DIRECT line of succession to the throne. (Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis).

Harry's child is seventh in line and therefore now an off-branch. If he'd been William's child, he would have gotten the HRH. But with generations of the line secured through Charles and the Cambridges, there was no need to make another far down the line GREAT-grandchild an HRH.

R85 and R87, the children of the sons of the reigning monarch are princes and princesses of the UK. Mark Phillips declined a title from the Queen and Princess Anne also titles for her children.

What's going on with Harry and Meghan will have an effect on the future generations.

I have no idea whether this went into their thinking, but Harry and Meghan might have looked to the example of Prince Andrew and decided to jump ship before they end up living sybaritic lives.

And as for William and Kate, well they should think about educating Charlotte and Louis to prepare them to live more independent lives. Do you really want these individuals living purposeless lives?

[quote] I feel sorry for them both, because of the scrutiny from the press and social media, but I may feel sorrier for him. Behind the facade, Harry must have been suffering tremendously since he was a child. First, his parents very publicly feuding and divorce, then the relentless hounding of his mother that led to her death. The mental toll it must have taken on him is indescribable.

R78, smallest violin in the world. Markle wants to be a media star - one has to be very gullible to swallow her self-pity charade. And go ahead and feel sorry for Henry when he was wearing Nazi costumes for fun and shooting defenceless animals for pleasure with his beloved redneck guns. He’s 35 and still drags up his dead mother to deflect from all his lies and bad actions (like when he started bringing up Diana right after he was caught lying about “flying commercial 99% of the time”).

I love how the anti-Meghan freaks project all sorts of motives on her, the worse the better. Don't forget about her supposed fake baby as well, r95! May as well make it a full insanity dump!

R78, don't forget that exactly the same happened to William but he turned out stable, even though he has arguably much more pressure on him as the heir.

William is allegedly a philandering cunt behind the scenes.

It'll be nice that he can't use the Sussexes to distract from his nonsense as much anymore. I'm sure Harry didn't appreciate that crap. You can see it in the manipulative "he's very concerned for his brother!"-type "leaks" that come from the Palace.

Harry and Markell will not accept public money, meaning money from the Sovereign Grant, which was only five percent of their income anyway. However, they will still accept money from Prince Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is essence is still public money totaling up to $20 million (which he divides some of that money between William and Harry) and which is given to Charles to run his household, duties and staff. How are Harry and Markle part of Charles’ household, duties and staff if they no longer represent the monarchy?

Financial independence, my ass!

Oh my god! Oh my god! This is literally the biggest thing ever to happen ever! How will the gay community ever come to terms with it??? I need to lie down.

Well, I don't see why they can't be HRH.

Luann de Lessups still calls herself a Countess even after the divorce and a marriage and another divorce.

Meghan's mouthpiece summarizes.

[quote]Secondly, how do they keep their patronages if they’re not representing the queen.

I would assume they're talking about the things that Harry started on his own like the InvictusGames and his mental health initiativ

It's astounding how poor the reading comprehension skills of a lot of the queens and fraus around here are. Every "news flash" I've seen today is very clear that the Sussexes have agreed to forgo the use of their HRH stylings in everyday life, they have not lost them. It's no different than Edward's kids who are actually HRH Prince James and Princess Louise - but whose parents have requested be styled as the children of their father's courtesy title of Earl. As to Archie's eventual status as an HRH - it's largely uncharted territory due to the Queen's longevity. If he had been born after Charles became king, the HRH would have been automatic.

The technicalities of titles are not interesting or particularly relevant. What matters is that they will no longer be able to use them. That's got to damage the "brand" they are trying to set up.

And the fact that they are being forced to repay all that money is far more important than the title silliness. That's got to hurt.

[quote]they get permission to use the name Sussex (without Royal)

I haven't read all the posts so apologies if this is repetitive...But if Mayhem and Dimshit lost the royal HRH title, that would automatically mean "Sussex Royal" brand is dead. No?

A financially-independent, already-rich couple who receives money from even richer dad. Okay.

Losing HRH means nothing to their targeted audience in the U.S. Bigger question is if they're allowed to financially profit off of theretained titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex. After all, that is the platform for their fame, as both not known for any renown outside of royal connections. They wouldn't be famous were if not for Harry's birthright title and Meghan being married to Harry.

For them to bow out the way that they did also left them open to scrutiny. Meghan telling media via surrogates that being in the RF was toxic, by extension branding Harry's family toxic, was not a good move. Why? Because it seems self-serving justifications for something that they knew was wrong. Especially now it's come to light that Meghan registered her LLC in Delaware to take advantage of the pro-secretive business laws there. Now she's having her personal assistant email charities to set up quick photo ops in hopes of resetting the narrative. No true humanitarian would self-describe herself as one, let alone collaborate with paps to document her charity visits for publicity.

MSNBC just said that they have not lost the HRH titles, but they cannot use them. (Whatever that means.)

William has said that once he becomes King, he will give Diana back her HRH title, so I guess she was stripped of that title.

[quote] Especially now it's come to light that Meghan registered her LLC in Delaware to take advantage of the pro-secretive business laws there.

As has been explained repeatedly, most companies are incorporated in Delaware. There is nothing underhanded about it.

R106, Hurt what? These are rich people...they should have no problem repaying the refurbishments. Harry and Meghan will be fine. Nothing to see here...

R109 William has said no such thing. Get off the Daily Mails comment section. William is a company man to the fullest. He is also a pragmatist and the last thing he will do is countermand the most popular monarch in history. Particularly on something that matters as little as that. Diana herself stated she had no use for the titles and she just wanted to be "queen of hearts".

[quote]The ‘Royal’ Dumbartons”

The Royal Dumbartons of Vancouver, r81. TFIFY

If they're not allowed to use their titles to make money, then what is left? Nothing. Lifestyle branding is not as easy as people think. The most successful celebrity branding are actually not high profile or they actually make products that people find useful and buy. Case in point, Jessica Alba and The Honest Company. Gwyneth is A-list and her lifestyle brand is niche, GOOP makes less money than people realize because it gets plenty of publicity.

The Sussexes might make some quick money but interests will wane once the initial novelty wears out. LA society and entertainment industry don't care about anything but $$$, if the Sussexes can make people money then they'll be fêted. If not, they're going to have to jump into the muck and sell themselves just to keep in public eye, similar to those desperate Real Housewives types. Lifestyle brands and media personalities often find that public relevance is hard to sustain. Without it though, the money well dries up just as quickly as their fame.

[quote] These are rich people...they should have no problem repaying the refurbishments. Harry and Meghan will be fine. Nothing to see here...

Any rich person asked to repay $2.4 millioin already spent would not be happy. That money will have to come from Charles. Of course they aren't going to starve but it is silly to act as if it is not a lot of money.

"YOU. LOONS. LOSE!!!!!!!"

Calm down, Mary. This is the beginning of the end for Sparkle and Dimwit. Losing your shit over this latest development isn't going to change that.

I stand vindicated on my prediction that the BRF would never really hold these two accountable for the havoc they wreaked on the BRF and Harry's relationship with with his brother and father, in any significant way, including "losing" their titles.This is another stitch-up.

Not using HRHs but retaining them? A sham.

Repaying the cost of renovations on their home? We know Charles will pay that for them, just as he paid for their wedding and the lavish fixings and furnishings inside the house.

In sum:

They get to keep their titles but not use them, but everyone will know that they still really ARE.

Charles pays off the renovation bill on Frogmore Cottage and they get to keep using it for free.

They get to go commercial with the Sussex name that the Queen gave them, anyway.

And one day, when they're divorced, Harry gets to waltz back through the doors with his HRH title intact.

These are window-dressing slaps on the hand by Her Majesty.

In short, everything the Sussexes were playing for with the possible exception of using their HRHs, and they know they can bloody well do without those as it's now common knowledge that they still ARE royal.

For shame, Your Majesty.

I was waiting to see if they tried screwing the British public again by indulging the two but making it look like they aren't. They did.

It IS time for a republic.

The stripping of titles should happen on the floor of Parliament. I am imagining Meghan on some sort of a stand, the back of her blouse torn open from a whipping, her covered in rotten food and fecal materials, as the sentence is passed and she is forced to depart Parliament via a gamut of Parliamentarians hissing and booing her as she exits as Citizeness Mountbatten, carrying her wailing half breed child.

Anne would make a great regent if Charles and William died before George came of age. Edward would make an acceptable one. It would not go to Harry know. Anne is popular.

Agree, r117. This is a "nothingburger". Bet Charles threw in Vancouver mansion for free. A little sweetener to keep Mayhem happy and hopefully, keep her trap shut gossiping about the BRF on SM, talk shows, etc.

R106 - Oh ffs, Charles is going to pay that bill. Harry doesn't have that kind of money. He'd reduce the principal on his trust fund. Rich people don't do that.

His real cash income is about $400,000 annually before taxes, it's the income from the trust fund. Either Charles will quietly pay the bill, or give Harry a nice fat cheque the way he's been doing every year to the tune of $2 million a year and then Harry will pretend to pay the bill, just the way Harry pretended to pay for the "fixings and furnishings" inside Frogmore.

I suppose Charles feels that as he did such a bad job raising the kid, and let him marry the L.A. grifter, he shares the guilt and doesn't mind indulging the kid one more time.

All Meghan and Harry have really lost is the "appearance" of being royal whilst everyone knows he's still Prince Harry and she's till an HRH, and the privilege of carrying out royal duties in the name of the Queen, which they fucking didn't want to go on doing, anyway.

The rest is all to their advantage. I told you, the BRF have no guts, no balls, and no spine.

The Queen should have insisted that after his and Meghan's behaviour, the only way he got that Sussex name and his Papa to pay off the renovation bill to the taxpayers (who are still on the hook for the 23 million the wedding cost them), was to surrender formally his HRH and his place in the line of succession.

Then, the Harkles really would have been just Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

The Harkles have, in fact, gotten to have their cake and eat it, too. Charles will cushion Harry from the really crushing financial obligations to the taxpayer, and the Queen has cushioned them from actually "losing" their HRHs.

They don't give much of a fuck about Frogmore or ever representing the Queen again.

Wearisomely predictable and transparently a load of bullshit in terms of accountability.

I can only imagine what Fergie thinks about how she was treated.

"One of the family"??!! A few days ago Meghan made sure to get herself a photo op that landed on the front pages on the same day the Cambridges made their high profile visit to Bradford.

They never learn.

This cracks me up to no ends.

But but but, still taxpayers will pay £7.6million-a-year security costs as Harry, Meghan and Archie start new life - but how will Canada or Britain split the bill? - The Daily Mail

The taxpayer will continue to pay Prince Harry and Meghan's £7.6million-a-year security bill, it appears, even though the couple have dropped their HRH titles.

There has been a growing row about who will pick up the couple's annual security bill as they split their time between the UK and Canada.

But Buckingham Palace's bombshell announcement this evening didn't directly address the issue.

A security expert has warned it could cost as much as £7.6million annually.

What she needs is a bombshell interview and to allude to the racial issues. America will embrace her because we pride ourselves on being social justice warriors and we don't really respect the monarchy anyway.

Meghan is just not likeable.

Harry is almost as bad.

They deserve each other...

R118 you sound sane!

You cunts wouldn't have been happy unless the Queen had Meghan hanged in the Tower of London and Harry publicly flogged and put in the stocks.

Freaks!

According to the Ny Times, "the palace" will review the agreement after one year. That suggests that if the two do a "bombshell interview" or something like it there are further measures the palace might take.

[quote] So if Edward;s kids have HRH, why doesn't Anne;s kids have HRH - if it because Anne is the daughter and therefor any kids she has don't get HRH?

The title of Prince and Princess with HRH only descends through the male line.

I don’t think Meghan’s public image is very good at the moment. It might be difficult to find ways to benefit her title.

[quote] I stand vindicated on my prediction that the BRF would never really hold these two accountable for the havoc they wreaked on the BRF and Harry's relationship with with his brother and father, in any significant way,

Both of these things are huge. This decision does indeed hold them accountable. Anything more severe would have come across as vindictive, and that would have damaged the royal family even more than Andrew.

If I were Meghan I would probably consider going scorched Earth, Beyonce and the black community defending the melanated Princess.

That means Oprah, divorce and a lifetime of book deals.

Fuck the royal family, pedophile protectors.

Cue three dozen adoring stories about stable Kate and sad William in the Daily Mail.. The Cambridges are behind this

^abd I'd set Frogmouth cottage on fire and tell the Queen to eat it.

Does anyone else think it doesn't technically matter if they have some letters behind their name or not?

Now she's free to work.

Obviously, it doesn't matter to most people, R133. But it probably matters to the people who matter.

The Queen had to tread carefully lest she be called a "bully" or "racist" or what have you. These two dimwits will no doubt overstep their boundaries by the 2021 review date. Then the BRF can take everything and say, "see, we tried, we gave them every change". If the marriage even lasts that long. Meghan may not care about the HRH, and Harry may think he wants to be Joe Six-Pack, but he will slowly come to the realization that he misses his former life.

What's delicious about all of this is that they can no longer blame any of their shortcomings on the BRF. It's all on them. No more, "I'm stifled", "I had to walk behind Mummy's casket", "William, William, William" - no more whinging. Plus, their commercial ventures will eventually peter out because they have no genuine interest in others and thus have no idea what appeals to people's pocketbooks. As another poster said above, if they stay together they will eventually have to profit off the drama of their lives because they have nothing else to offer.

R134 that's like 5 people. I don't think they matter as much as you think they matter.

Kylie Jenner made a small fortune and it wasn't from people who mattered!

Harry is still 6th in the line of succession and Archie is still 7th.

I don't care if it has been reported that Meghan will return for family events such as the Trooping of the Colour. There is no way she will ever put herself in their presence and, thus, have to bow. No way.

The titles confuse this American so I don’t really care about that. If they are free to do what they like now, good for them. I don’t think it’ll be as easy as they imagined, but whatever. They won’t wind up homeless.

I look forward to seeing the drama to come.

Who’s paying for what? That’s what I want to know. I’m sort of assuming that they will still be financially supported by that idiot Charles, and whatever they make beyond that, by hook or by crook, will be gravy.

[quote] I don't care if it has been reported that Meghan will return for family events such as the Trooping of the Colour. There is no way she will ever put herself in their presence and, thus, have to bow

No one has to bow or curtsy.

R125 - NO! We prefer beheading!!!! Especially with her messy hair, we just want it all gone.

There is still an expectation within the BRF that you bow/curtsy to the Queen, Philip and Charles. They probably would not expect Meghan to do so, but she wouldn't chance it. Particularly with Kate as it so obviously chafed her to be seen as Kate's lesser (real or imagined).

This is honestly bullshit. The Queen inherited her title as did Harry, so you either have it for life or not all all. I'm a socialist with no dog in the fight, but these fuckers can't have it both ways.

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage"

I will buy everyone here a case of expensive champagne, if they ever do.

The Queen is also Queen of Canada. Harry et al could have kept their titles and represented the Queen there, no? Is the attention they’d get there really different than what big stars get?

When the Queen kicks the bucket later this year, Meghan will be blamed for that too.

What is the wife’s nationality?

I'll be on the lookout for HRH Harry running the cash register at my local Wiener Works.

African r148. African.

Just means they're on the same level as Harry's mom, Diana, and they no longer have to follow royal protocol in their conduct. There are a lot of Dukes, and Duchesses in England. They don't use the HRH because they are not senior royals.

Harry has also officially removed himself from the line of succession, and his child. Slick move, imo.

Anyone reading anything else into this is a moron.

damn! Damn! DAMN!! I was just about to make a move to boost that diamond bracelet Charles got her

R150, South African?

Anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before Meghan is schlepping Archie to Gelson's for a pap shoot a la Jolie and her child army? By this summer?

Kudos, R152, for knowing your royalty and all the crown jewels that old Pirate purloined back from mistresses and minor royals.

So paedophile Prince Edward still has his title?

Got it. Thanks.

And Meghan and Harry--the most likeable and popular royals--no longer have their titles to do their work.

Got it. Thanks.

R154 is fucking deluded in every way imaginable.

Mmh, Harry is a popular royal, but Meghan polls quite low. Less that Camilla at this point, right?

Not every Duke and Duchess in the UK is part of the royal family

Edward is not the Pedo Prince, R156, that would be Andrew, and yes, you still have to introduce him as HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS if he's ever allowed out of his room again.

[quote] I love how the anti-Meghan freaks project all sorts of motives on her, the worse the better. Don't forget about her supposed fake baby as well, [R95]! May as well make it a full insanity dump!

You’re the one who said that, not me, “insanity dump” @ R96. So you’re “projecting” on me. Physician, heal thyself :).

As for Markle’s interest in being a media star - that’s not projection, that’s supported by evidence of her life choices. She obviously likes being on TV, giving photo-shoots to the media, and being around famous people.

yes, I read that Harry will still get his annual 2 million from daddy charles.

no royal duties, no public funds which I take to mean, no security. They will have to pay for their own or I think Canada will now foot the bill!

Before vulture Meghan can give a bombshell interview she has a lot to think about. Where were her black relatives at the wedding? Why do we only read about Doria, was she a virgin birth? Was she in jail or airline hostess when Meghan was a teen? We have read all about the white side, now it's time for the black side.

I don't know why people are assuming the Queen is removing the HRHs against Harry and Meghan's wishes. It's entirely possible the pair of them are fine with this, especially Harry. He strikes me as the type of person who's never really been comfortable being referred to as His Royal Highness.

[quote] So paedophile Prince Edward still has his title? Got it. Thanks.

You haven't "got it" at all since Prince Edward is not the family paedophile.

You sound really stupid, in fact.

They said they gave it up voluntarily.

With encouragement and incentives, I suspect, R167.

[quote]They're not moving to LA, they're not divorcing.

Of COURSE Meg's not moving to LA, too many blacks.

I suppose *some* people are biracial when it's conveeeeeniet!

R165, their website “SussexRoyal. com” uses their HRHs, and they’d never objected to the title before.

If you look at their Instagram, commonly assumed to be ran by Meghan, the use of HRHs is abundant. Laughably overused.

She no more wanted to give up the HRH than they wanted Archie to not be a Prince. They have to say it was their idea to save face.

R154, you made me LOL because I was thinking about that earlier, and couldn’t remember the name “Gelson’s”. Also that pumpkin patch where Tori Spelling and the Kardashians take their babies to be papped.

She’s an evil, avacado-eating, baby bump-obsessed, musty-church hating, fashion wearing, self brander!

Unlike darling English rose Duchess Kate, who did the same things, but did them while being light skinned and British.

The RIGHT way.

No attempted conversions by wild, dark foreigners accepted!

[quote]I have been completely indifferent to Meghan and Harry, but occasionally read the stories out of some curiosity, since I used to live in London. What I simply do not understand is what Meghan was expecting? You don't marry a into the royal family and expect any semblance of a normal life. There is no way that his being a prince was part of the attraction for her, so then she sets in motion a plan to strip him of the life of a prince? I just don't get what her end game is in this. I'm not romantic enough to believe that it is all about love, because you can't just fall in love with someone like Prince Harry without recognizing all the baggage that comes with it.

Meghan simply couldn't fathom a life without mug-cradling/yoga-ing/topless sunbathing for the 'Gram, I guess.

Remember when “Master Archie” had his own page on the Royal Family official website? It was located directly under the Queen and Prince Philip. Now he’s disappeared. Huh.

OP, I'm not familiar with the publicity around Princess Anne when she left England and went to live in the US. She also rejected titles for her children. She did reportedly because she was furious, as she should have been, that she was bumped down the line of succession because she was female. Things are very different for Princess Charlotte than they were for her. She remains in the line of succession, however, though way down and is still HRH. She's also back in England,

"According to the Ny Times, "the palace" will review the agreement after one year. That suggests that if the two do a "bombshell interview" or something like it there are further measures the palace might take."

Like what? Take away their ice-cream on Sundays?

Not send Archie birthday presents?

Not ask Meghan if she's Okay?

They've shot their wad. The BRF have lost their chance to acknowledge that these two have behaved very, very badly, betrayed the BRF's faith in them, insulted Britain and the monarchy, and played fast and loose.

The only thing that the BRF have acknowledged with this arrangement is their desperate desire to get this out of the way, and so profound a terror of a few weeks of bad PR, that they're willing to make it crystal clear that they have been a victim of an expert hustler who never had the slightest intention of spending the rest of her life in the boring drudgery that the Cambridges, the Wessexes, the Gloucesters, the Kents, and Pss. Anne do.

If the foundation supporting the monarchy starts chipping away as the years go, it will fully deserve it. Their handling of Meghan Markle (right down to the nauseating sugar the Queen poured all over Meghan after she virtually took a wrecking ball to the Queen's family) has almost certainly gouged a large piece out of that foundation.

They need no royal title to generate their own special brand of magic.

R131 - The Cambridges are behind WHAT!? Meghan Markle getting everything she really wanted out of marrying Harry?! A title that the Queen is too frightened to take away from her, endless money from her hubby's pathetic Papa, including the renovation bill, free housing at Frogmore for the rest of their lives, sloughing off the very duties they no longer wanted to do, and the freedom to merch the name Sussex to their heart's content?!

If the Cambridges are behind all that, Meghan should be kissing William's feet in Harrod's window on a busy Monday morning.

It's the life she fucking wanted all the time.

Yeah, William arranged it all; Carole Middleton helped him. They're really Lord Voldemort and Maleficent.

R178 - Shouldn't that have attribution quotes around it?

(quote]Harry has also officially removed himself from the line of succession, and his child. Slick move, imo.

It's not up to him. Only Parliament can change the order of succession. Up until recently you could remove yourself by marrying a Roman Catholic. That was the only out. If the Cambridge clan died tomorrow in a tragic accident, Harry would become Prince of Wales when Liz kicks it.

[quote]OP, I'm not familiar with the publicity around Princess Anne when she left England and went to live in the US. She also rejected titles for her children.

Really her first husband did, by choosing not to have a courtesy title granted to him when he married Anne. Titles come from the father - and he was a commoner. It also had no bearing on Anne's kids place in the order of succession. Up until very recently daughters of the sovereign always ranked below their brothers in the order. Charlotte is the first one affected by the change.

[quote]According to the Ny Times, "the palace" will review the agreement after one year. That suggests that if the two do a "bombshell interview" or something like it there are further measures the palace might take."

I would think that means from a financial standpoint... to see if in one year they are making the kind of money they expect and, if so, they'd be cut off from Charles' allowance and/or pay for their own security.

This whole thread is off. HRH is NOT A TITLE. It is merely a form of reference, a style, for royals born royal. Or made royal, so styled marrying into the family. Not in the family, leave it, you are no longer styled HRH, if once you were. Harry is still a prince of England. He will just not be referenced as HRH anymore. And by leaving he "firm" his dukedom will no longer be a royal one. There are lots of non-royal English dukes, now Harry joins them. Harry and Meghan lose styles of address, are no longer entitled to be HRH.

This is a global PR nightmare to Meghan. This has made headlines all over the world. She and Harry are seen in a very negative way. Being a senior member of BRF doesn’t look too bad, from the outside and that’s the way public sees BRF and their duties. What respectful company wants to be associated with her? After this is forgotten so are they. This will not end well. I’m afraid of Harry’s mental well being.

[quote] if Harry dies next week, Archie becomes the Duke of Sussex - as it is a royal dukedom, it carries an automatic HRH.

NO. Royal dukedoms do not automatically carry the HRH. When the current holders of the royal dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent die both of whom are HRHs, their sons will inherit the royal dukedoms, but they will be known as His Grace, not as His Royal Highness. Regardless, in terms of precedence, being royal dukedoms they will always outrank regular dukedoms even without the HRH.

First, [italic]they[/italic] don’t have a title. [italic]He[/italic] does. She is entitled to use the feminine form as his wife. Full stop.

Second, there is only one heir… the sovereign’s first born. The rest are just in line.

Third, a style (HRH) is one thing. A title is a separate thing. A Royal Dukedom is a collection of titles traditionally reserved for men of the royal family. But they are titles, not styles. Dim is apparently losing the style but not the title, so she does too. Harry isn’t being stripped of his HRH but of the style HRH. Nothing can change his birth as a royal prince. Agree with the poster who said this is a backdoor option come the divorce: woosh, the Queen or King proclaims HRH the Duke of Sussex again.

Where this leaves SussexRoyal doesn’t seem to have been made clear but if you’re not HRH, you’re not working on behalf of the Queen, you’re not a working member of the Royal Family, you’re not very royal, are you?

[quote]As for keeping their "private patronages", there is no such thing.

There is: Invictus. That wasn’t on behalf of the Queen. What they’ve taken away is anything on behalf of the Queen. No Commonwealth, no military… they’re out.

[quote]She already changed things without resorting to Parliamentary permission when she ended male primogeniture in terms of the Succession. Did anyone see a vote in Parliament in it?

It’s called the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. The end of primogeniture was passed by parliament.

There probably will be a Letters Patent issued, just quietly. It will be gazetted. There are so many implications: Counsellor of State, regency etc. Something will have to be written down at some point, just right now they aren’t rubbing salt in Harry’s wounds. I doubt they give a damn about his wretched wife, who brought about all this trouble but I bet all the sucking up to her in the statement was to soothe Dim's wounded feelings. Lest we forget, a week ago the papers were full of leaks worried about their shared fragile mental states. They're just trying to keep him from going bonkers and from being irretrievable once the Countess of Carpetbagging finally slithers off into whatever her next grift will be.

Harry has NOT removed himself from succession. He is still sixth in line to the throne, and Archie is still seventh.

They could abdicate if they ever inherited the throne, but no one can remove himself or herself by the line of succession. It usded to be you could by converting to Catholicism or by marrying a Catholic, but even that doesn't work anymore.

The order of succession:

1) HRH The Prince of Wales (Charles)

2) HRH The Duke of Cambridge (William)

3) HRH Prince George of Cambridge

4) HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge

5) HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge

6) Harry, Duke of Sussex

7) Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

8) HRH the Duke of York (Andrew)

9) HRH Princess Beatrice of York

10) HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank

11) HRH the Earl of Wessex (Edward)

12) James, the Viscount Severn

13) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor

14) HRH The Princess Royal (Anne)

15) Peter Phillips

16) Savannah Phillips

17) Isla Phillips

18) Zara Tindall

19) Mia Tindall

20) Lena Tindall

That takes us through all of the queen's children and grandchildren.

Well, they fucked up. Plain and simple. She was wrong for the job, couldn't handle it. He wants to quit anyway, so he goes with her. Oh well.

[quote]that they have been a victim of an expert hustler

THIS. Meghan Markle has outwitted, outsmarted the BRF, the "grey men", the supposed PR expert teams, and she's revved up her merching/branding expertise not 1 month back in Canada. The BRF were not ever going to win the (PR) battle. It must be humiliating on some level for them to have been so expertly played (MM's terms, and timing).

[quote] Meghan Markle has outwitted, outsmarted the BRF, the "grey men", the supposed PR expert teams, and she's revved up her merching/branding expertise not 1 month back in Canada.

She's lost her rights to use HRH or to be closely associated with the queen or the Prince of Wales (and thus most of her prestige). She's lost some of her funding, and will lose more as time goes on.

And she'll STILL never get to wear the tiara with the big emeralds... ever.

How do you figure she has outwitted or outsmarted them? What has she gained?

harry is gonna open a bar and resto...what else is he gonna do?

People who are fine with Harry and Meghan getting their titles stripped, while ANDREW still has his speak for themselves.

Sounds like a typical DL'er tbh.

The whole family should be stripped of everything, R192.

They are the ones who wanted to leave the Royal Family...nobody put a gun to their head.

R193, I agree with you 100%.

But, the negative coverage Meghan got in the press over Prince ANDREW (I got the name wrong earlier, WTF cares) says a great deal about the British media, as well as the onlookers who don't bat an eye.

Apparently, a paedophile isn't as bad as an unproven golddigger.

R192, Andrew hasn't actually been found guilty of anything yet. He's had to give up his duties following that stupid interview but it would be a bit too much for him to have to give up the use of HRH because of accusations and rumour. He's also old and irrelevant. Harry and Meghan, on the other hand, specifically requested to stand down as senior royals and have stated they want to make their own private income through the use of the trademarked name Sussex Royal. Of course they should not be permitted to use HRH for those purposes.

Their descent into celebrity will strengthen the institution of monarchy as they look increasingly crass and louche with each passing year. There'll be no escaping her for awhile but eventually her escapades will become so cheap even the tabs will tire of her. In the end she won't be anything more than a footnote relating to a sad moment in time. At least Wallis Simpson had the dignity to see it through to the end. This one probably has probably already talked to a divorce lawyer. I'm glad she's acquired a status that suits what she evidently values.

R195, but Andrew has not been proved to have had sex with anyone and no one in the UK and most of the world considers sex with a 17 year old to be paedophilia.

Meghan and Harry, on the other hand, have literally stated they want to step back as royals in order to make private money and have trademarked the name Sussex Royal for that purpose. Of course they should not be permitted to use HRH in those circumstances.

R196, "Andrew hasn't actually been found guilty of anything yet."

Ah, okay. I hadn't realised. Then, he should definitely keep his title. Makes complete sense.

/sarcasm

[quote] Prince ANDREW (I got the name wrong earlier, WTF cares)

Boy are YOU ever on the wrong forum!

I’ve said it before, but... the latest photos of Meghan show her picking up her Pilates buddy from the airport. She’s carrying a tote bag with the name of a pyramid-scheme cosmetic company on it.

THAT’s what she’s using her clout to tout?

R85

None of this affects Archie Sussex; he does not have royal rank now because 1917 Letters Patent only devolve that status upon sons and grandsons of sovereigns. Prince Harry declined, never asked for or whatever HRH for Archie unlike his nephews and nieces (Prince William's children) who were risen up by LP issued by HM. When HM dies and either PC or PW become monarch as grandson or son of monarch Archie by birthright (according to 1917 LP) will become HRH regardless of his father's status.

Also just to be clear there is no such thing as a "royal dukedom". Yes, certain dukedoms have long been associated with royal sons (Cambridge, Sussex, etc.. ) but that is far as things go.

Read their original website rollout (which has since been edited)--they absolutely counted on being able to keep and market their HRH/royal titles. I think Harry thought Granny would never strip him of anything, and in fact she's done something smarter. If she stripped them of it, that would read as vindictive and further their pity party. But by letting them remain HRH but not use it, the title now only has value in the royal circle they have left. Their "brand" now has a very short shelf life.

A comment from The Times that's amusing:

I can’t help feeling we need to share some of the blame here.

For starters there’s the £460,000 wedding dress and the £30 million we spent on the wedding - I mean which part of all that said ‘welcome’ to the poor girl?

And as for the idyllic House in Windsor and the flat in town with endless staff and range rovers on tap - I can’t help but see some worrying r@cial overtones in all that.

The people of Canada don’t know how lucky they are yet. Our loss indeed.

Every second post is by the despicable Titles Troll, an 84 year old British frau who is obsessed with the royals. It makes for very tedious reading as she rattles on about 'letters patent' and people being 'styled as' and losing her rag. KKK troll.

Andrew is keeping his title because he was born with it, and so is Harry.

Harry remains HRH Prince Henry. The distinction between agreeing not to use the title, and being prevented from using it because the Queen took it away from you, is a fine but telling one.

The only way Harry could really stop being an HRH is if he voluntarily agreed to surrender it (which wouldn't at all mean he was out of the line of succession). The Queen stripping of the title that she didn't give him (as opposed to the ducal title, which was a wedding present from her), but that he had at birth by virtue of being her grandson in the male line, would have seemed exorbitantly punitive. In this particular case, HM was really between a rock and a hard place. The best compromise available was to insist (probably through financial pressure from Charles) that they drop the style of HRH, using only their ducal names of Sussex. This leaves the Queen's grandson his HRH, but prevents the commoner interloper (even if still technically entitled to it by virtue of her being Harry's wife) from using the style.

Short of looking like an avenging fury, the Queen really hadn't a choice on Harry's HRH. Diana wasn't royal, neither was Fergie, so their divorces really cost them their HRHs which was confirmed through Letters Patent.

But Harry was born royal - taking that away without Harry's express agreement would have been a bridge too far.

If the Harkles divorce, and Meghan isn't a UK citizen, then she will likely use even the backdoor entitlement to HRH, and possibly even Duchess of Sussex. But Harry, like Charles and Andrew, will retain his HRH.

That's really, I think what they're aiming for: leaving Harry something of his balls to go on with.

The rest is, of course, typical rich people protecting their own kids. Papa will continue to up their lifestyle, he'll pay the renovation Bill on Frogmore.

But I did not see anything about them paying rent on Frogmore in order to retain it as their base during the year. What poster had the information on that?

Again parallels between PH and his great uncle Duke of Windsor are so eerie.

After abdicating Edward VIII was made "Duke of Windsor" and given royal status (HRH) for his sole exclusive use only; not any issue that may occur from his body, and certainly not Wallis Simpson. Queen Elizabeth was in on decision making as was keen that WS not get anything due to her background; having divorced two husbands there were fears she'd chuck "David" over and then you'd have a thrice divorced royal duchess loose in Europe.

Upon hearing news even Wallis Simpson was quick to grasp intent and meaning. As both son of one monarch and grandson of another Prince "David" was HRH by birth right. Becoming king meant his titles merged back to crown by not necessarily rank, he just got one higher (HM instead of HRH). Question then became did Duke of Windsor really need to be recreated a HRH, and more to point if not and original rank stuck, then his wife automatically was royal upon her marriage, same as any other woman in GB who marries a man with a title/rank.

'Meghan Markle has outwitted, outsmarted the BRF, the "grey men", the supposed PR expert teams, and she's revved up her merching/branding expertise not 1 month back in Canada. The BRF were not ever going to win the (PR) battle. It must be humiliating on some level for them to have been so expertly played (MM's terms, and timing).'

Yep. Even if they call their brand Meghan and Harry, they are still HUGE. This crap about her merching for some cosmetic company just because he carried a bag with it on is hilarious. She just swung a 3m deal with Disney.

Sure r199, Andrew should be barred from using HRH on the basis of accusations that he had sex with someone who in 99% of the world, including almost the whole of the US, it is perfectly legal to have sex with. He's never going to perform a royal duty or represent the Queen ever again so he effectively has lost functional use of HRH.

That has nothing to do with Harry and Meghan, however, who have made it clear that they want to use their royal connections and the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex in order to make money. They cannot be allowed to implicate the Queen, who is the head of state of the UK and other countries, in these commercial activities so of course they should be barred from the use of HRH.

R200, Apparently not being an Andrew apologist, I do find myself on the wrong forum, lol. I'm surprised the gay misogynist fuck-twats on here don't refer to her by and large as a frau.

I'm glad I cut my time down on here.

Anyway, people outside of the UK are going to care even less about The Royals now (I mean the actual Royals; I'm sure people will still turn in for subsequent episodes of The Crown; but good luck after they get passed 2020).

Meghan briefly made The Royals more interesting.

It would be kind of hilarious if George ends up being gay decades from now, so that family can be even further exposed for the assholes they really are. Not sure if the King of England will be so accepting of the future king having a male partner and female "helper" to carry that royal blue bloodline.

As "Harry and Meghan's" connections to the royal family wither, so will public and other celebrity interest in them. He's never accomplished anything on his own and the best she could manage was a C/D list acting career and a lifestyle blog with near-zero influence.

I imagine the real members of the royal family prefer to earn respect rather than celebrity and interest.

R206

Exactly!

Prince Harry hasn't committed high crimes nor treason, there is no legal basis for stripping him of his birthrights just because the prince wants out of official BRF life. As you yourself have stated neither Diana nor Fergie were born royal, all they had came with (and ended) with their marriages.

Duke of Sussex is still grandson of a monarch and in future son of another; it would have been seen as really petty to bust him down ranks to total commoner over what amounts to a family squabble.

What should and cannot be allowed is a cheapening of royal status by its use in commercial trade/merchandising. Even use of royal warrant by tradesmen or products carries strict rules and so forth.

Again it is a bit of Lady Patricia Ramsay all over again. PH hasn't officially been stripped of his royal status, nor rank and precedence; just will cease using HRH publicly.

I agree with Bill Maher. British Royal Family is stupid in 2020. These people are better than exactly no one.

[quote] Every second post is by the despicable Titles Troll,

Why would people not talk about titles in a thread headlined "Prince Harry & Meghan lose HRH titles"???

And all you have to do is use Ignore-dar to see MANY different posters here know about and are discussing titles and letters patent.

Sorry our knowledge is clearly so threatening and frightening to you--but if you didn't want to talk about titles, you're on the wrong thread.

Those two dirty bastards!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

It's been noted but let's get it straight. So troubled souls such as R205 can hold their stink when in a thread about titles they get upset because people post about titles, and get sexist, ageist and racist in the process.

No one has lost her or his "HRH."

Harry and Meghan are His and Her Royal Highnesses. They simply won't be referred to that way, at least for the time being. It's softer even than Camilla being the Princess of Wales and never being referred to that way.

Everything has been set so that they could resume their previous roles if they so choose. They have an out that has been carefully set. Part of this is because the family sees them as going through a personal crisis, perhaps, and not a permanent lunacy. Also, in time the whole situation with the family will change as the queen and Philip die (with him already out of the picture), Charles is taken with his kingship, Camilla remains Camilla even if she becomes Queen Consort, Andrew is out of things, Anne ages, the Kents and Gloucesters are gone, and William and his wife can't do it all with only additional assistance from Sophie and Edward. (Plus as king Charles has no intention on spreading the work out to Andrew's daughters, who are superfluous to him.

At that point, with the Sussexes more settled, the family hopes they can pick up some of the slack and step up.

Likelihood? Not much, not when the couple has had time to enjoy their independence in the midst of fame, wealth, no real responsibilities and prime celebrity. They will be the Royal Kardashians.

"The whole family is utter trash."

Yeah, Markle's mother ... is "utter trash."

STFU, you useless idiot.

Meghan probably already has a book deal lined up - a book that will be very sympathetic to her and not unkind to the Queen - she doesn't want to get Harry and Archie cut out of the will. The book won't make her rich but will set up her branding as a kind of rebellious "princess". In a year or two, there will probably be a sympathetic movie, cementing her brand. After the movie, she'll land a cosmetics contract, the commercials having fun with her tossing away a tiara.

Her next step should be trying to land voice work for an animated film, giving her a loyal audience of little girls who will grow up idolizing her. She will team up with celebrities for charity work, giving her access to lots of Hollywood parties. If she's smart, she'll persuade Harry to set up a production company, focusing on documentaries. Harry needs to be occupied, and a production company will keep him out of trouble. The documentaries will give her credibility with the woke community.

Then in 10 years, Harry will cheat with some cute personal assistant, and Meghan will have a new brand as wounded wife. She'll divorce Harry, marry some super rich dude who can support her in the manner she wants, and she'll never have to work again. Harry will slink back to the UK, start drinking, then marry some proper woman that the family approves of. Meghan will swan through London once a year, and they'll put on a great show of supporting their son through his teenage drinking and drug problems. Meghan will get her final revenge at Archie's wedding, when she shows up looking fabulous in comparison to all the proper British ladies. After that, she'll fade from relevance.

"Everything has been set so that they could resume their previous roles if they so choose. They have an out that has been carefully set."

Agreed R218 with one small correction: so HARRY could resume his previous role. I think they're banking on Harry coming back without Meghan.

R214, the BRF exists to represent the British class system, and for that reason it’s not going anywhere. It stands for the proposition that some people are better than others simply because of who their parents were. Indeed, when you are born into the right class, you can get away with your crimes, provided you lie low for a bit. You cannot, however, betray your class by doing demeaning things such as “developing your brand,” or other nonsense like that. That’s middle class, and that’s worse than being a criminal.

R204 you do realize that the Royal wedding was estimated to have brought over a BILLION dollars to the British economy, correct? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well they can't get married every month, R223. Seems to me that bathwater's gone cold.

Very good, R220. More than plausible. The tiara tossing is a nice touch.

In ten years she'll be 48 and she's already got a weigh problem. In ten years she'll be her father. There is no rich man in her future unless he's blind.

So, there seems to be a lot of experts here. What would happen if someone who was in direct line of the throne comes out as gay and takes up a same-sex partner? Will that person be expected to excuse themselves for being next-in-line?

Don't ask me.

R226 some guys like that. Gay guys don't.

Meghan will become the breadwinner doing diet drink and pet food commercials. Harry will stay home working on his mental health problems and taking care of baby Archie.

"None of this affects Archie Sussex; he does not have royal rank now because 1917 Letters Patent only devolve that status upon sons and grandsons of sovereigns."

So, when Charles becomes king, does Archie automatically become an HRH? Someone here must know!

And IMHO the Queen and the Palace are playing the long game. By letting Meg and Dim keep their titles and have access to money from Charles, they're keeping a stick to hit them with. They'll have to build their "Sussex Royal" brand knowing that the queen and/or Charles can take away both the "royal" and the "Sussex", if they're ever displeased enough. That gives the Palace control over what kind of money-grubbing these two get to engage in.

I'm old enough to remember (and I assume most DLers are as well) when Diana got her big divorce settlement, wore her "fuck you" dress and became an international celebrity, achieving the kind of pre-social media glamour that Sparkle could only dream about. But by the end of her life, she was a woman without a country relying on the kindness of eurotrash types like the Fayeds as a port in a storm. The BRF, meanwhile, went on with their lives and Chuck started the slow process of rehabbing Camilla's image and she's eventually become if not necessarily beloved, but an affectionate figure -something that seemed unimaginable after Chuck & Di's nasty divorce. The point being, Diana won the battle, but she clearly didn't win the war. Sparkle may have won the battle in the short term, and she'll likely always find a home with the Russian mobster-types or creepy Saudis, but that aint exactly hanging with Obama & Clooney type celebrity life. Harry, as predicted, will likely come home with his tail between his leg - and oh, won't that be ironic when he's living at Frogmore - the place he once snubbed. So even though today Sparkle is looking pretty smug & no doubt lining up various merch deals, in a few years time - or maybe even sooner - doors may close to her like they did Di.

For someone who pretty much called the BRF “toxic” and “soul crushing” via her “sources,” Meghan sure has trouble completely giving up her royal title. If she was truly hurting, one would want a swift, surgical extraction from them. She still desperately wants to be affiliated with that anachronistic institution for the cachet of it all.

She’s very lucky the contemporary BRF are deathly afraid of the racist stamp. If she had been all white, I think the Queen would have come down harder. Damn Betty and that yellow stripe down her back.

[quote]So even though today Sparkle is looking pretty smug & no doubt lining up various merch deals, in a few years time - or maybe even sooner - doors may close to her like they did Di.

And she's her own worst enemy. The self indulgence (tiara gate, the baby shower), the high handedness (staff turnover)... she's her own worst enemy and the stories will leak more and more and damage "the brand."

R231

Unless something is changed legally then yes, moment Prince of Wales becomes king, or Prince William inherits, Archie Sussex will automatically become "HRH" as grandson or son of sovereign. What happens then is anyone's guess.

One's HRH is not a casual honorific. For those born to it, it never will be "removed." Divorced spouses have it dropped because their claim to the title is based on a marital connection. People calling for the detestable Andrew to be referred to as something else miss the point. It's not like being kicked out of the Order of the Garter.

Right, R221. But I think they're observing in Harry the dangerous Windsor tendency, shared by Bertie and David, of attaching to a strong (or manipulating and controlling, depending on your opinion) woman and sticking with her like a starving baby to a tit. Harry has found order through the military but apart from some vague idealistic impulses typical of people in a golden bubble he still seems rather unformed and vulnerable. Meaning that they'll take them back but would expect her to have to do the dumping (which he wouldn't do) and questioning whether she'd actually step away from him.

Oh, who knows? Once Elizabeth dies the family will have enough to deal with so that these two people may end up being quite peripheral. How long will it be before they start to bore people, and seem pointless or hectoring? Like the New Duke of Windsor married to a smiling Goop-type maven of all things diverse and loving and special? Ptui.

[quote] So, when Charles becomes king, does Archie automatically become an HRH? Someone here must know!

Yes, automatically he will become legally His Royal Highness the instant the queen dies.

But his parents will almost certainly not let him use the styling while he is still a minor. He can make up his own mind as to whether he wants to use it once he reaches the age of majority when his parents can no longer decide things for him (the same is true for Edward's children, who do not use HRH but still have it legally, and who can choose to use it once they become of legal majority).

[quote] One's HRH is not a casual honorific. For those born to it, it never will be "removed."

"Never" is not exactly true. It HAS been removed before, albeit in extraordinary circumstances.

In 1917 the Titles Deprivation Act removed the titles and HRH stylings of several members of the British royal family who had supported Germany in WWI: the Duke of Albany, the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale; and his son Prince Ernest Augustus. They were all born HRH, but they lost it through an act of Parliament.

Someone I have on "ignore" just posted twice in a row.

Someone needs to write a dishy tell all Meghan biography called “The Pretender.”

R227

"The new regulations will specify that despite the equalisation of legal marriage rights for gay and straight couples, the same legal rights do not apply to anyone “who marries, or who is married to, the King Regnant, to the title of Queen”.

"It also specifies that if in the future, a Prince of Wales married a man, his husband would not inherit the title Princess of Wales."

"The Treason Act of 1351 will also be altered meaning it is still treason to have sex with a King’s wife – but that it would not be treason to have sex with his husband."

In short good measure of marriage equality does not apply to monarchy and Prince of Wales. But then again how could it?

For a start monarch is also head of C of E, that religion fought quite a battle against SSM in UK. Next by virtue of biology a SSM means there will not be legal issue of a monarch's body (heirs). It is one thing when that happens for various reasons, but to start out of the gate knowing there won't be heirs is just not something royals nor their governments prefer. Henry VIII murdered two wives, divorced a royal daughter of Spain, kicked Catholic church out of England, and otherwise created havoc all in getting of heirs.

Title "Princess of Wales" long has been reserved for wife of Prince of Wales. Duchess of Kent (Princess Victoria's mother) and her instruments tried to get Victoria created "pss of Wales" only to be shot down very severely by the king.

A gay prince of Wales can marry where he likes, but his spouse won't be Princess of Wales. Similarly said pss of W could inherit throne but his consort wouldn't be "queen" either. In both instances this would affect precedence unless something was done to address matter. Things are written as "Princess of Wales" or "wife of eldest son of monarch", etc.... Queen consorts are first lady of land, you cannot just insert a man into that office. Nor could he be "first gentleman" or man of land because that is the king.

[quote]Someone I have on "ignore" just posted twice in a row.

And, so? did you really need to waste bandwidth to tell us this?

I wish whoever did Woko Ono would do Harry as well.

'In effect, though, that Mail on Sunday defence document represented a guide for Harry and Meghan to use to escape media “scrutiny”, ie persecution. The HRH titles will be ditched, they will not represent the Queen, they will “step back” from royal duties, they won’t take taxpayers money and will pay back the money spent on refurbishing their Windsor mansion. They’ll live in Canada, and they’ll be at best celebs doing charity work rather than British public or state figures in the traditional sense. Thus there can be vastly less “public interest” – in the media’s own terms – in their private lives.

The rest is detail. The bill for the security detail can be dealt with; they will be able to generate revenues of their own; the accountants can sort out the tax. They’ll not need a food bank. No one beyond some frustrated editors cares that much. The press will not have Meghan to kick around anymore.'

Meghan is damaged goods. There are just too many stories about her treating people like shit. I doubt she will get lots of endorsement in the long term to sustain the lifestyle they want. The UK press also won't leave her alone. They are in for a ride if they think they were treated poorly by the press before this whole drama.

For sad sack H

[quote]And IMHO the Queen and the Palace are playing the long game. By letting Meg and Dim keep their titles and have access to money from Charles, they're keeping a stick to hit them with. They'll have to build their "Sussex Royal" brand knowing that the queen and/or Charles can take away both the "royal" and the "Sussex", if they're ever displeased enough. That gives the Palace control over what kind of money-grubbing these two get to engage in.

^^ This, totally. They are playing the LONG GAME here. The BRF famously moves at a snail's pace, they are conservative and deliberately slow-moving. Today's declarations make certain general things clear, but there is a TON unstated, and to be read between the lines.

Keeping a stick in place to use is very accurate. They've left a lot undetermined, deliberately. The HRH can't be used, but technically is still in place - TECHNICALLY. It can be taken away in a 5-second stroke of the pen, should the situation warrant. The dukedom stays, but also is in play for the near- and long-term.

The phrase in TQ's statement today: "everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty" is the most key part. They are TELLING the Sussexes that they will no nothing to embarrass the monarch, nothing to cheapen the Crown or upset TQ. Otherwise, potential consequences.

Many wanted the BRF to go in whole hog and whack H&M with a stick. Wasn't going to happen, not at all this close to the whole situation going public. It leaves much room though, for future changes or actions, dependent on situational factors. It was what was expected.

R61

Status devloves upon children via their fathers; as such nearly universally royal princesses, grand duchesses, etc.. generally do not pass their rank or titles down to their children. It has always been presumed kings daughters would marry other princes or persons of suitable rank and thus any children would gain their status that way.

On occasions where this did not happen for various reasons historically nothing was stopping a monarch from raising said children up (making them royal and perhaps throwing in some titles as well).

Important thing to remember is females marry out of a family, while those who marry sons come into it. This why daughters in law become royal at time of their marriage (even if they didn't have that status previously), and their children as well. It acts as way of self limiting of a royal house. If daughters of a monarch could pass royal rank onto their children you'd have far more royals than otherwise.

R61

Status devloves upon children via their fathers; as such nearly universally royal princesses, grand duchesses, etc.. generally do not pass their rank or titles down to their children. It has always been presumed kings daughters would marry other princes or persons of suitable rank and thus any children would gain their status that way.

On occasions where this did not happen for various reasons historically nothing was stopping a monarch from raising said children up (making them royal and perhaps throwing in some titles as well).

Important thing to remember is females marry out of a family, while those who marry sons come into it. This why daughters in law become royal at time of their marriage (even if they didn't have that status previously), and their children as well. It acts as way of self limiting of a royal house. If daughters of a monarch could pass royal rank onto their children you'd have far more royals than otherwise.

He’s going to regret this sooner rather than later.

This should have read: ". . .then she will likely LOSE even the backdoor . . ."

R206

I wish them well, but realize that they will most likely go through a lot more turmoil because of the narc. There won't be a happy ending for them as a couple.

So how long until the divorce? 18 months? 24? I can't see them going longer than that. I also don't think she'll have another kid, now that she has successfully used Archie as blackmail/extortion. Where is that psychic (or friend of psychic) who was posting a month or so ago? Seems to me they were on the money, but my memory could be shot. I'd like to hear more from that person.

For those who think that they have successfully bailed and are top, what about her pending lawsuit? It's going to be very ugly and probably very expensive. Who's going to pay their legal bills? And what kind of hit will it take on their popularity? (Since I think she's the Trump of the royal family, I suppose most Americans won't even notice or care, if they're not fans of her already.)

R210 - Don't let the door hit you in the arse.

[quote]I wonder if the Queen is playing cagey on this because if the Harkles get divorced, they want to leave the door open for an HRH Harry to come back into the fold.

This is exactly what was chiefly in play today, in fact, in play all week. They are leaving lots of 'wiggle room' to take Harry back if and when he chooses to come back to the UK.

That could be years, but remember these people play a very LONG game. It's how they've lasted 1000+ years, as reigning royalty.

R220 - You had me until, "Meghan will get her final revenge at Archie's wedding, when she shows up looking fabulous in comparison to all the proper British ladies."

Given her taste in clothes . . .

R240 - Paging Tina Brown.

After blocking, it looks like the same 3 people repeatedly talking about this dumbass boring topic.

[quote]I agree with Bill Maher. British Royal Family is stupid in 2020. These people are better than exactly no one.

Bill Maher - a guy paid millions to give his uninformed opinion on a weekly show on HBO.

Kitty Kelley, r256. Tina Brown tends to "re-package" second hand stories. Morton is good but Kelley has great sources.

What 257 said.....geez louise y'all aren't being very entertaining yet on this thread.....HRH this...HRH that...like a group of old semi-deaf folks squawking back and forth about one single term....

This statement is subtle and clever, and I agree it's all about playing the long game. We know that Meghan is terrible at that. The BRF is giving her plenty of freedom and being as publicly kind as possible, knowing that she won't be able to stick to the agreement or the marriage. She will certainly never stick to the marriage long enough to get British citizenship, which means that when she and Harry divorce, she'll lose the titles completely. Harry can come back and be a working Royal or not, marry or not, but at least Meghan won't be out there in the world making bank off her HRH or Sussex title.

In the meantime, the inability to use the Sussex HRH means it can't be besmirched by the merch. It's also the title equivalent of denying her that shiny emerald tiara she wanted so much. I guarantee she's freaking out behind the scenes, and this will only hasten her ultimate desertion of Harry.

The statement also means that if Harry and Meghan do a tell-all interview, they'll look like totally ungrateful assholes.

So they still get to be called the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and keep Frogmore?

When will Muriel kick the DL Klanners back to Celebitchy?

You mean the DL Klanner Trolls, r264

[bold]Meghan’s PR stunts can’t gloss over the appalling way she’s treated her dad[/bold]

Camilla Long, Sunday TIMES, January 19, 2020

You know who the real victim in this whole Harry and Meghan thing is? It isn’t Harry or Meghan, however much these fey children tell us they’ve had their spirits “crushed” by the sheer number of palaces and diamonds and footmen we’ve flung at them. It isn’t us, even though we’ve had the stupidity to pay this pair of oxygen thieves more than £60,000 a day, if you take into account the £32m wedding, the £2.4m cottage renovation, the security and fripperies and Meghan’s dresses, for the privilege of being patronised and dissed to our faces by them, since they married in May 2018.

It’s the poor, sweet, unsuspecting ladies of the Grenfell soup kitchen I feel sorry for, who have been repeatedly duped into smiling and nodding as the duchess sweeps in to pretend to cook rice on yet another of her many content-gathering missions. These women have been treated as a glorified backdrop by Meghan, and at some point you have to ask yourself: if there were zero chance of those pictures being used for PR purposes, would the duchess even have come? Imagine arriving “discreetly”, as if you’d gone just for them, only to splash pics as soon as you need to launder your image. No sincerity, no truth — these visits only help Meghan.

She was at it again in Vancouver last week, where she has turned her vampire gaze on virgin territory on Canada’s west coast. There were the usual “secret” visits convened by a “secret” assistant from a “secret” hotmail address, before the smug blanket photo-dump, prompting one paper to shriek: “Canada cannot allow you to come to stay.”

How do we judge this woman, I thought, as I looked at the latest shots of her catching a seaplane to visit a women’s shelter. By the actions that she takes that are easy for her, such as a quick visit to a kitchen or a refuge, where she is treated like a goddess and praised for her do-gooding by millions of leftards, or by the way she actually treats the people who are close to her, which is the way most people are judged in life? If we’re going on the way she treats people who are close to her, the record is currently abysmal.

Continued

[bold]Meghan’s PR stunts can’t gloss over the appalling way she’s treated her dad[/bold]

Part Two

You probably didn’t have time last Tuesday to read the response by The Mail on Sunday to the duchess’s decision to sue the paper. You probably missed the paragraphs revealing how Meghan is obsessed to the point of self-destruction with her own publicity, getting her friends to intervene over articles, even after she was married (hot tip: don’t sue a paper you’ve tried to manipulate). You probably missed the paper’s claim that she went as far as sending a letter to her father, the contents of which she allowed five of her friends to discuss and disclose to an American magazine, with the intention of smearing him and making herself look better. This is all desperate, mediocre stuff.

I should say at this point I don’t have an enormous amount of time for men who side with the papers against their children either. I don’t have the wildest respect for fathers who are prepared to clamber into the courtroom in order to slate any member of their family in petty disputes. It’s not thrilling that Thomas Markle is gearing up to bear witness against his own daughter but maybe it’s the only way he feels he can communicate with her these days — besides, he must be angry.

The letter wasn’t even the worst thing: there was the cold way in which Meghan responded to the news that he’d had emergency heart surgery the week of her wedding. I say Meghan, but it appears that Harry was the one who sent the text message to his soon-to-be father-in-law after he came out of surgery — no note, no words of condolence, no sign of the human warmth he’s famous for; just a curt telling-off for speaking to the press.

I am sure Harry was busy — wondering, perhaps, which wall of the suite at Coworth Park he was going to spray with his pre-wedding champagne — but it was a stinging enough response for Markle to say he was sorry his heart attack had been an “inconvenience”. How does anyone get tangled up in a web of such toxic misery and self-obsession that they can’t even ask a 73-year-old man how his surgery went? Who cares about the stupid wedding?

If Meghan is sensible, she will drop this legal dispute as quick as she can, unless she so wants to add “copyright warrior” to her Insta bio that she will submit to a shameful courtroom showdown. If she is sensible, she will realise this situation is now lose-lose for her — but, unlike Fergie, unlike Diana, she may not be able to resist the drama.

R227, The British Royals don't seem to have a problem with homosexuality, in and of itself. The Queen's cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, recently married a male partner, and the Queen's late uncle, Prince George, was a promiscuous bisexual. In Lord Ivar's case, he already has three daughters with his ex-wife. As R241 pointed out, though, there really is no precedent for a same-sex consort for a Royal in the immediate line of succession. If/when the current Prince George gets old enough and comes out as gay, it will probably lead to some difficult decisions, for everyone involved. At least his parents have already indicated they wouldn't have a problem with it. Again, the Monarchy is fundamentally socially conservative, and it tends to follow precedents, which don't exist for some situations.

I never gave a shit about the British royal family/Harry and Meghan before today, and I won't tomorrow. However, with my limited knowledge of the subject, my sympathy lies fully with Harry and Meghan. I applaud them for essentially calling everyones bluff and saying to hell with all that royal idiocy. They've now made it ten times harder for the tabloid media to target them, and impossible for anyone to claim that that Meghan married Harry for his title and status.

The criticism of Meghan has clearly been ridiculous, as this article shows. Whether it's racially motivated I don't know, but I don't blame them for thinking it.

If George comes out as gay, he will simply reign as a gay male monarch. I don't foresee much hand-wringing over that, by that point in time.

if the UK succession/inheritance laws haven't been updated by then, allowing for bio children born to surrogates to inherit, they'll simply groom Charlotte or Louis kids for the throne. There will always be heirs available.

FFS r269 that link has been posted on DL a dozen times the past few days, we've already dissected it over and over. Comical, really.

So he'll be called "Harry Windsor" now?

I see hosting a talk show in Megan's future!

R237, are you kidding? The second the Queen dies and Archie becomes "Prince Archie" they will make him a permanent public fixture and income source. "Raising a *true* selfless royal away from the toxic royals" will be the theme of every interview, stunt and scheme from then on.

As for what to do with gay George, the world will be a very different place by then so it's absurd to presume what will happen then based on what would happen now. Plus William will be on the throne when the issue becomes pressing and he's far less likely that his grandmother or his father to see any problem with it.

"Americans really need to get to grips with the concept of succession and the monarch."

Actually, we really don't.

We fought a war in order rid ourselves of that particular concept.

Two words: Reality Show and Oprah is going to pay them an obscene amount of money for it

The problem is going to be Harry.

The kid is going to go nuts. Look at the interviews, you can see he's fragile and has crazy face.

He's never lead a normal life and now he finds himself married, with a kid and living in Canada! He's going to miss everything about his former life and all the perks, And he'll miss the organization and regimentation of Royal life: remember he loved the military. Now he'll have to think for himself.

Meghan's in charge, has a clear understanding of who she is and what she wants. Harry is going to be a mess.

Maybe in ayear, Harry will find the grass less greener and wiggle him way back into the the British Royal Palace.

Ugh...I am an American and cannot be bothered to read this whole thread

Question: All of this can be undone with the stroke of a pen, correct? If and when Charles becomes King can't he bring the Sussexes back into the fold?

They'll have agents and all, but still, they're going to attract some real sharks.

Watch Meghan accept an acting role and then it's 40% Rotten Tomatoes...

r279 the door is left open for them (or Harry ) to return, should they decide to. The HRH styling wasn't removed (or hasn't yet been removed) by TQ, formally. It's use could be reinstated, should they choose to go back to the UK and work as royals again.

Also, they seem to still have use of Frogmore, for now.

[quote] I imagine the real members of the royal family prefer to earn respect rather than celebrity and interest.

Harry and Meghan are the only royals anyone outside of the UK cares about. Just like his mother before him -- whose celebrity eclipsed the entire BRF -- Harry's celebrity will endure for his entire life.

Celebrity = $$$$$

That is all...

Prince George is already six. In just 10-12 years it will all be about him. These two will be old news.

R279, Charles is much less forgiving than his mother, hates not being the center of attention, and has openly feuded with his sons. It’s hard to anticipate what he might do as king.

Surely they'll do some sort of interview. They're going to want to – and almost have to – explain themselves.

Harry and the Grifter Markle should absolutely not be allowed to trademark or even use the name “SussexRoyal” for anything. While they were not stripped of the HRH style, they will not be using this style, and they are not performing any royal duties on behalf of the monarchy and not representing the sovereign. Therefore, they are not royal for any commercial enterprises.

[quote]Prince George is already six. In just 10-12 years it will all be about him. These two will be old news.

If George looks half a good as his dad looked in his teens, yep, no one will care about the 46 year old Sussexes, r283.

[quote] Prince George is already six. In just 10-12 years it will all be about him. These two will be old news.

Agree. Harry knows this because Meghan told him. She convinced him that he didn't want to be an aimless, embarrassing footnote, under the yoke of his family, shunted aside by toddlers and living off the royal dole -- like his Uncles. There is a lot of money that can be made in 10 to 12 years. Thereafter, they live a life of leisure and philanthropy with a mountain of money, global celebrity and goodwill, and NO ROYAL DUTIES. Plus, they get to hang out with Oprah, Beyonce and the Obamas.

Harry loved the idea.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] After blocking, it looks like the same 3 people repeatedly talking about this dumbass boring topic.

You can tell because they use the same dumb nicknames-- "Harkle," "Meg and Dim," and so on. They also make the same three points about titles and "narcs." It's pathological at this point.

[quote] If George looks half a good as his dad looked in his teens, yep, no one will care about the 46 year old Sussexes, [R283].

Dear God,

Please allow me to live long enough to participate in the endless Datalounge discussions containing rumor, gossip and lascivious innuendo about the delightful and carefree (and gay) Princess George as a young man.

- Eldergay

How are they going to make money? Specifically?

How are they going to make money? Specifically?

r270 Why does George ping for so many of you??? I cannot figure it out (full disclosure: I am a frau)

In her next move, Liz will invite Chelsea Davey to tea.

Big Liz is always two steps ahead.

R292 If nothing else, they seem to have some major shakedown talent that they can fall back on.

"How are they going to make money? Specifically?"

I have no idea how Dimwit will make a living. But Sparkle will get celebrity endorsements; she'll shill for cosmetics, fashion brands, etc. She (or maybe both of them) will make public appearances for which they'll get paid. She might go back to acting and get paid millions more than she ever made when she was a nobody C-list actress. She might get paid millions for a "tell all" book deal. They might get paid for "exclusive" interviews or photos. They'll get paid for the things that celebrities get paid for doing. Because that is what they will be, celebrities. And if they think "stepping away" from their royal duties is going to make tabloids and paparazzi leave them alone to enjoy their newfound wealth and leisure then they're even dumber than they look. The media is going to be ALL OVER them, all the time. They're just trading one form of scrutiny for another. They won't be royals, but they will be as watched and commented as if they still were. Maybe even more so.

lol r296. Nailed it completely.. lol

George does not ping for me either.

....

Lol..r300. What a shock!

[quote] Two words: Reality Show and Oprah is going to pay them an obscene amount of money for it

Gurl...if those two did a reality show it would break whatever streaming platform made it available and put the Kardashians out of business. And even Oprah couldn't afford it.

Meghan, Serena and Priyanka on waverunners in the Bahamas! Downing champagne at Beyonce's 4Oth B-day bash! Visiting Ghana with Oprah and Michelle!

$$$$$$$$

[quote]...And if they think "stepping away" from their royal duties is going to make tabloids and paparazzi leave them alone to enjoy their newfound wealth and leisure then they're even dumber than they look. The media is going to be ALL OVER them, all the time. They're just trading one form of scrutiny for another. They won't be royals, but they will be as watched and commented as if they still were. Maybe even more so.

Yes, Dear. We're counting on it.

[quote]...And if they think "stepping away" from their royal duties is going to make tabloids and paparazzi leave them alone to enjoy their newfound wealth and leisure then they're even dumber than they look. The media is going to be ALL OVER them, all the time. They're just trading one form of scrutiny for another. They won't be royals, but they will be as watched and commented as if they still were. Maybe even more so.

Yes, Dear. We're counting on it.

I have always thought Harry has entertainment value. Remember when he said to Meghan on the balcony, "Turn around!" Just two words, but it was interesting. He has that presence like Diana had. It's like, what will he be doing today, kindof thing. Some people just have that quality.

Their post-Royal life is going to be a lot like Diana's life in the mid-90s. Meghan will love it. Harry will hate it.

R302-- I somehow doubt that participating in a reality show is in line with Her Majesty's value so goodbye any financial support from Daddy and Grandma

^^^I agree a reality show is unlikely. Making $$$$ will not be a problem for the Sussexes. They won't be undercover trying to sell access for a few coins, like Fergie.

I think the first thing they will be doing is setting up a couple’s account on Chaturbate.

Can't imagine why anyone would feel sorry for Harry and Megs. You get a life of unimaginable luxury all for the price of shaking some hands a few times a year. Guess poor Megs is going to miss sitting in the Royal Box if she wants to watch bestie Serena at Wimbledon this year.

Incorrect, R223. Those “estimates” are unproven and far-fetched:

[quote] “It's a favorite tabloid newspaper headline: The Royal Wedding will bring a huge boost to the economy. BUT past experience shows that [bold]grand royal events DON’t usually produce the big bucks businesses would like, and they barely register in terms of the performance of the wider economy.[/bold] "We would be wary of over-egging the potential impact or seeking to put a hard figure on the potential gains," said Howard Archer, chief economic adviser to the EY ITEM Club.

[quote] "It should be kept in mind that some of the retail spending may just be [simply] SWITCHED from spending on OTHER items." If history repeats itself, the Royal Wedding will fall flat in terms of economics.

[quote] PwC estimated that [the previous royal wedding] generated roughly £107 million ($145 million) in extra spending: Good for retailers, but LESS than 4% of the amount spent in the UK on BLACK FRIDAY, the busiest shopping day of the year.

[quote] And any splurge in spending this month [May] may be followed by a slump in June. ONS data shows that while retail sales spiked in April 2011 [previous royal event], they fell the following month

[quote] ... how much of the extra drinking is down to the wedding will be hard to judge, particularly as one of the UK's biggest annual SPORTING events - the FA Cup soccer final - falls on the [exact] same day.

[quote] [bold]There HASN’T been a noticeable rise in the number of flight bookings to the UK for the wedding, according to travel experts.[/bold]

[quote] Analysts expect that any spike in visits from royal fans will be COUNTERACTED by the desire of other tourists to stay far away from the crowds.”

R311 you're looking at an article published prior to the wedding. Yes, it brought in over a BILLION.

In any case certainly far more than the cost of the wedding and their subsequent payments. Which is why it's so disengenuous to have penny pinchers suddenly complaining about the Frogmore renovations or the cost of their security. You don't really care about it. You're just using it as a cudgel to beat them with because you're so emotionally involved that you can't admit they have or will do any good whatsoever.

With a lot of this we'll still have to see how it unfolds, particularly how they brand themselves and where they live.

One thing that's interesting is we are going into week 3 now (or 2.5) since Meghan headed back to Canada and Harry still in the UK. Each week reports are he is staying to continue "sorting out details" with the palace. Harry had an engagement this week, but the media says he will be in London another week to wrap this up. It seems odd that Harry wouldn't be jetting back to Canada ASAP and then work out the fine details of the rest of the agreement with Meghan by his side. I wonder if Harry is undergoing some kind of mental health treatment or if he had some kind of meltdown.

The gifter is well aware that they and their grift have failed when it is publicly exposed. As The Times article at R266 has brilliantly done.

Megs will never set foot in England again, as a grifter NEVER returns to the scene of the crime, their previous grift.

I predicted Megs would be out the door, gone from Britain by this summer. She's ahead of schedule. In any event, Ginger was never part of Megs future, but like all her other marks, Mr. Right Now for whatever she could gain from him. He is now an albatross around her neck holding her back from what she believes is her next and even more stellar grift.

The jockeying for position vis-a-vis usage of titles, payments, and paybacks are PR and spin, and completely irrelevant. Megs realizes she's on her way to her next grift. The BRF realize this as well and have left the door open for Ginger to return to his family. The only one who doesn't realize any of this is dumb, dim Ginger, who will be left bewildered in freezing Canada wondering where it all went wrong. If he ever gets to Canada, that is.

R315 with how long he's taking to return to her it seems over already.

I side with Morgan.

R220's scenario has been mine too for a long while, but the timeline is different: 10 years til the divorce is much too long. He'll likely be relegated to househusbanding while she's busy hustling. The nanny is probably homely and team Meghan, but there'll be some other household worker who's comely and sympathetic to a fragile man starting over in his mid-30s. An indiscretion would give M the perfect way to unload him now that he has no more use to her. I'd say within two years we'll have "I couldn't trust him anymore" headlines.

R266, I can't take seriously a commentator who uses the world "leftard."

R314

When you get down to it PH is what this whole mess is about; titles, rank, Frogmore cottage, money from PC, HM, etc... all of it including relations with RF mostly all involve duke of Sussex mostly. The Markle woman has PH's legal wife may have to sign off on certain papers as matter of course, but that is only because of their marriage.

One also has feeling MM would just be in the way now; she's made her views and wishes known so what else is there for her to do?

R269, it's not at all "impossible for anyone to claim that Meghan married Harry for his title and status." She's now internationally famous and in a position to make loads of money, just by having married Harry. As many have stated here, her actual title is irrelevant, especially in her target market USA.

That Buzzfeed article has got so much traction (good for them), but it's clickbait for non-critical thinkers. Proof of racism against her would be (imo) the straight outta compton headlne and various comments on social media. Waiting for someone to put together all the negative headlines aimed at Kate/Diana/Fergie/Camilla versus the positive Meghan ones.

R288, not sure if they'll be hanging out with the Carters--Beyonce looked pretty nonplussed at Harry's hard sale in the most recent video of the Lion King premiere. Entertainment royalty was there to meet real royalty, not field desperate pitches. Bey and Jay also avoid the crass Kardashians, despite Kanye, right?

R272

When a surname is required at times Prince William and Prince Harry have used Mountbatten-Windsor in past.

PH's son is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

Mountbatten-Windsor is only used by male descendants of HM and Prince Phillip who do not have (or use) royal titles and styles.

Name was created in aid of dealing with Prince Phillip's wounded pride upon finding out he wouldn't be getting crown matrimonial, and quite like last prince consort was really nothing more than a stud brought in to create next generation of heirs. Prince Phillip lamented at the time "I am an amoeba".

So to do something HM and Privy Council didn't change family surname from Windsor, but only any male line issue from HM and her prince consort. The Kent, Gloucester and other cousins of HM are all still Windsor since they descend through George V.

So while for all intents and purposes the British royal house still remains "Windsor", in practical terms it really isn't as the succession so far (Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, etc...) are all Mountbatten-Windsor.

When William and Harry were younger, they were known as William Wales and Harry Wales.

Archie is going to be seriously pissed at his parents when he is old enough to figure out what went on. His first cousins will grow up in a completely different world and one in which he could have spent time.

The addition of Mountbatten to the Royal surname was due to Uncle Dickie Mountbatten, who'd been conniving for decades to exert his influence over the Windsors. Not content that his nephew was matched with the future Queen of England, he campaigned to have Mountbatten added as part of the Royal surname, causing his nephew to whinge publicly "I'm the only man in Britain who isn't allowed to give my children my name. Ever the peacemaker, the Queen rolled her eyes, mumbled Uncle Dickie and announced that henceforth, her family would be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. When the Queen Mum heard about it, she commented "What's all this Mountbatten-Windsor nonsense?".

It's almost time for the weekend purge of threads. which one will survive?

Absolutely, r325. He is being torn away from an absolutely unique and actually wonderful life to go and be yet another celebrity sprog in LA. Given that it's unlikely Meghan will want to spend much time in the UK ever again, it's unlikely he will even know his father's side that well. Then there's the question of if they will have another kid or will he be an only child.

Everybody needs to scroll to the very top of this thread and give it a WW as the original post has been crossed out. Otherwise, it may be shut down soon.

R257 - But you thought it was worth checking out 200+ posts in? Interesting.

R336

In the great upheaval of name changes and other efforts of 1917 by George V to distance himself from his German background, and relations. Prince Louis Battenberg and his wife Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine found themselves busted down the ranks from mere "Serene Highness" into the peerage. Prince Louis Battenberg (Dickie Mountbatten's father) became 1st Marquess of Milford Haven. To say the Battenbergs were miffed would be putting it mildly.

They do say Battenberg family held a grudge against their cousin George V and his family for the name and rank change with certain members waiting to get their own back.

After plotting, scheming and maneuvering his nephew into the eyes and arms of Princess Elizabeth, Dickie Mountbatten was rumored to have said "the next king of England will be a Mountbatten" or words to that affect.

R236 "Oh, who knows? Once Elizabeth dies the family will have enough to deal with so that these two people may end up being quite peripheral. How long will it be before they start to bore people, and seem pointless or hectoring? Like the New Duke of Windsor married to a smiling Goop-type maven of all things diverse and loving and special? Ptui."

Sensible post. That probably explains the speed with which Meghan sprung her (I remain convinced) long-planned exit. She knows better than anyone what a short shelf-life people like her enjoy in the celebrity fast lane. She needs to get out there, make a lot of money, and nail it all down quickly.

When the Queen dies, Charles takes over for what everyone knows will be a relatively briefer reign, the new Prince and Princess of Wales such the air out of the room in terms of royal glamour and status, their three adorable children growing up and appearing constantly in HELLO! and like publications . . .

And, eventually, as King and Queen of Great Britain, with Harry and Meghan around 60 and long ago stopped interesting the public . . . it all disappears in the wash of Time.

I think the BRF is counting on that. The cooing of Penny Junor that the Queen left them their HRHs and said nice things about Meghan to "leave the door open in case things change and they want to come back" is, of course, bullshit. The only door left open is for Harry in the event of a divorce, not Meghan.

Still, without running the two of them out of town on rails with tar and feathering, it's about as anodyne as the Queen, clearly, needed it to be.

William, I don't doubt, was pushing for something a bit more punitive considering what Meghan did to his family and its image, Charles was probably caught in the middle, the Queen on the "let's all play nicely together" end, and they averaged it out.

Meghan still comes out the winner: she left, as everyone predicted she would when her total unsuitability for royal life quickly emerged, with far more than she came in with. Harry is the loser: eventually she will leave him, he will be left to try to repair things with his own family, and even financially, if they aren't in a community property situation, she'll probably take him to the cleaners the way he and Meghan are taking Charles to the cleaners.

It's not a good look for any of them - Meghan will continue to make waves, she has to if she wants to strike while the iron is hot. Harry is revealed to have been taking huge sums of money from his rich Papa and has no problem continuing to do so; Charles looks like a rich fool; the Queen, like someone who only cares how things look, not how they actually are.

But you're right: once HM is raptured, things will change again.

As a friend of mine once wittily put it: Time wounds all "heels".

Meghan and Harry are nothing if not "heels".

Once again, absolutely everything these two ever said or did was being picked up on a constant basis via surviellance. Not only the scheming and the exit plan strategy must have been known by the Palace, but also every snide personal remark and every bit of shade thrown at members of the family. Their only means of private communication between themselves would have been through the written word - OR, paper and typewriter. I appreciate all the sweetness, rainbows, and soap bubbles wafting from Meghan every time she publicly speaks, but in all fairness she does have an image to project. If she is or ever had been an undercover Cunt, then they ALL KNOW IT!

Keeping on the Mountbatten theme for a moment; Prince Harry's ex-gf Cressida Bonas, married a Harry Wentworth-Stanley.

Mother of Mr. Wentworth-Stanley (from her first marriage that ended in divorce) is Clare Mountbatten, Marchioness of Milford Haven, the second wife of George Mountbatten, 4th Marquess of Milford Haven. and cousin to HM.

George Mountbatten founded and sold recently a tech company called uSwitch to an American firm for about $400 million USD.

The fun stuff will be as the gossip dribbles out over the next weeks and months.

[quote] Dickie Mountbatten was rumored to have said "the next king of England will be a Mountbatten" or words to that affect.

I seem to remember reading somewhere a few months after Uncle Dickie's explosive demise that it wasn't the IRA, but the Queen Mum who had arranged to hastened Uncle Dickie on to his maker. That she was beyond disgusted with his meddling, including trying to fob his granddaughter Amanda off on Charles.

Interesting, R334. "Marchioness of Milford Haven" - what a wonderful grand name. Sounds like Cressida will be the one to have pretty much the perfect hybrid aristo-actress life.

Countess LuAnn posted some advice for Meghan on Instagram.

Queen Elizabeth at church today: "Thank you, God, for giving me the wisdom not to let her wear the Vladimir or the Greville Kokoshnik."

Prince Andrew at church today: "Thank you, God, for sending Harry and Meghan to provide just the diversion and hysteria necessary for me to walk with Mum to church publicly."

Prince Charles this morning as Cammy puts his slippers on for him: "Christ, how the fuck more is this going to cost me?!"

Princess Anne, sotto voce: "Fucking lot of wet messes."

Prince William to Kate: "I warned him, but would he listen?!"

HRH the Duchess of Cambridge: "Never mind, darling; by the way - I think I might be up the duff again."

Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor: tell me again which side of the Pond I'm on?

I'm actually very surprised by Meghan. I thought she would immerse herself into the playing the Royal role since she lucked out marrying Harry. The fact that she is totally uninterested tells me she would have rather landed a famous actor or a super wealthy man connected to the film industry, a Dodi Fayed type.

R340 - Actually, it's Fayed, Sr., that she would have been looking for. Dodi was an idiot totally dependent on his father for his money (ironically, the case with Meghan's second husband, as well).

Look, she was neither exceptionally beautiful, nor a particularly good actress, let alone with a career that extended beyond that one "Suits" role and being a Suitcase Girl on Deal or No Deal. At 35 and looking at likely professional oblivion, Harry was the best card to fall her way, and she knew it.

Maybe she planned to stick it out if it worked well and she was turning into Diana 2.0, and the press adored her, and she found screaming applauding crowds around every time she showed up. But absent that, there's no way she'd have stuck around to become further and further behind the Cambridges.

As one aide said after the first announcement, "the handwriting was really on the wall a long time ago."

All things considered, she did well out of it.

Old saying: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Both Meghan and Harry have yet to start eating the new pudding. Meghan loves the shallow glitz of celebrity culture. I'm not sure Harry, eventually, will be as comfortable with it, especially as most of it will swirl around his wife, not him.

And as far as "toxic environments" go, Beverly Hills doesn't look to me like much of an improvement over royal life in Britain. Chris Hemsworth moved his family back to Australia to keep his kids out of it.

It will be interesting following it along.

When Fergie was kicked out of the Royal Family, she did Weight Watchers commercials. But poor Fergie can't catch a break. Weight Watchers released a huge campaign add around Fergie having to run from the papparazzi and then about two weeks later, Diana's car crash happened. Weight Watchers pulled that ad so quickly. I have a friend who kept one of the mailers from the papparazzi ad campaign. I told her at the time, "Save that, it could be your retirement fund."

R340 I think Meghan immersed herself in the Royal role for two years. The problem is, like all of her life, she never seems satisfied and moved on to what she perceives is the next best thing. I doubt we will ever see her alongside BRF members (besides Harry) ever again. She ghosted them.

R340 Same, I thought she would become grander and more British than the Queen, complete with posh English accent. I would have enjoyed seeing her do the opulent gown, sash and tiara thing. But really, had she bought in to the duty requirements of the job and performed them cheerfully, she would have been genuinely beloved as part of the royal family, yes maybe even the most popular member. Many were skeptical about a hip Californian TV actress being suitable for this particular role, and in the end they were right.

r344, I thought that was her goal. To "integrate" the Royal Family and show little black girls that they can become whatever the want. I guess a lifetime of giving speeches to Girl Guides and Girl Scouts was not her original plan.

My God! The gays really live for this type of family drama. They, and fraus, eat it up. No wonder soap operas are out of commission.

And it’s all Americans. Oh, the irony.

"Princess Anne, sotto voce: "Fucking lot of wet messes." "

Okay, that made me laugh loud enough to wake up my elderly cat!

But re Meghan, yeah, obviously she'd never like the daily gruntwork of shaking hands and wearing hats like a proper royal, but she might have stuck it out if she'd been wildly popular with the public or fawned over by the press. I think she wants to be hugely famous, even more than she wants to be wealthy, and she really REALLY wants to be filthy rich. I'm kind of surprised that she didn't see the issues with the press coming, given how they spent ten years ripping the dutiful Duchess of Cambridge to shreds, but maybe she did see it coming and married Harry anyway. Because yeah, at her age and with her looks and talent, she wasn't going to do better than a prince with a low IQ and serious mommy issues.

I'm a little disappointed b/c Meghan had the chance to make history. She will of course get rich and probably sustain longterm fame with Archie, but will be an unwelcome footnote in terms of BRF history. Had she stuck with the role and saw it through with the enthusiasm she initially held, she would have made history, been in historical texts for life as a game changer. She would have been the first longstanding HRH American POC. No matter what the hysterical Celebitchy people say, I believe the world and Americans in general were rooting for her success. Not that the world cards, but I do think there is maybe a shared disappointment among Americans who were rooting for her.

I've come to the conclusion that there are some places Americans simply do not belong and the BRF is one of the. Our sensibilities and everything we are taught to be are just not congruent with Royal life, which is fine. Americans are not known for stiff upper lips - we are down for drama and hysterics. Life goes on and what Meghan has given/gives us is a really fun distraction with hopefully little surprises to take our minds off what might be an intense and certainly divisive 2020 in the US. Keep it coming, Meghan.

Don't see this as anything other than a short-lived victory for Meghan. She's no Diana. Sure, she has a title, and she might be able to milk some interest for a few years about what it's like being in the BRF, but after that, what? She's not particularly interesting aside from being married to Harry. And Harry is only interesting because he's a prince. And since neither one will be doing any royal duties, where are their photo ops? The Queen is no dummy, so there has to be an airtight NDA in place to prevent either one from doing any kind of dishy interviews. I predict obscurity in 5 years.

They are still using HRH on their website!

They obviously don't give a shit. Their word isn't their bond.

Selfish, ungrateful cunts.

R351 Maybe the agreement hasn't been officially signed yet.

R351 - isn't there a message on their website that states there will be changes and updates coming soon and that everyone please be patient? I guess they were talking to people like YOU.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I can see what she's up to now. Had they separated in the U.K.there'd be no property for her to take as it's all on loan. Next stop to find her dream home and hang the costs and be comfortable knowing if it all goes belly up she has her dream home to keep. She'll be driving a Porche soon.

- Interesting DM Comment

The video is of Harry at the rugby draw, not the pundits. Can someone in the UK explain to this American why so many public figures there go with horrible, deliberately hideous ties, as in R354's photo? Bercow does the same thing and I've seen too many others. I thought people weren't wearing ties any more. Is it "I must wear this, so it'll be blindingly awful" or, like shiny white teeth, something members of the commentariat feel they need to wear to be noticed? They are, but they look like clowns.

A funny cartoon.

There's a minor flap today, courtesy the Maul, about the HRH. Apparently it has not been removed - they have just agreed they will not use it.

I bet there's two reasons. One, keeping a door open for Harry to return to the life he belongs in and find a nice second wife who will live up to the job. Two - probably most important - if it was stripped from Harry as a non-working Royal, how do they justify not stripping it from Andrew? I know he's been convicted here but in the real world he is only guilty - albeit so far - of hanging with the worst crowd imaginable. He's said to be a favourite of the Queen. I imagine Harry and Meagain got a pass for Andrew's sake, more than theirs.

[quote]I've come to the conclusion that there are some places Americans simply do not belong and the BRF is one of the. Our sensibilities and everything we are taught to be are just not congruent with Royal life, which is fine. Americans are not known for stiff upper lips - we are down for drama and hysterics. Life goes on and what Meghan has given/gives us is a really fun distraction with hopefully little surprises to take our minds off what might be an intense and certainly divisive 2020 in the US. Keep it coming, Meghan.

Respectfully, I agree, as a Canadian. I was always skeptical she understood what she was getting into, what would be asked of her, and what she would have to give up. It was never for someone marrying in to reinvent or modernize the monarchy. Could she have brought a modern tone to her work? Yes. And early on she did. But as it unfolded it's plain this lady thinks she's got something to say and, without have a go at that belief, this really isn't the platform for a talker. She's obviously not stupid. How she didn't know that going in I can't imagine. And all the damage done as she ploughed ahead.

[quote]And since neither one will be doing any royal duties, where are their photo ops?

Things that will have a kind of how the might have fallen feel to the photos... the Oscars, the Golden Globes, things like that in the early years. As their shine fades, and presumably as stories about her as a horror to work for/with/around emerge, they'll wind up on that New York Social thingy we take the piss out of around here.

If they last that long. Given her track record, does anybody really give the marriage more than five years?

Harry should take Megan's surname now: Harry Markle. Archie Markle.

It has far more pizazz.

All the news reports say that the meeting was with the Queen, Charles, William and Harry. You know there were probably ten lawyers in the room as well.

R340

Really do not think MM was totally prepared for just how much racial feeling and scorn was going to be hurled her way on a constant basis. Maybe PH and his fancy woman planned on rough seas early on but things calming down (as they did with Kate Middleton), but things didn't work out that way.

Next do not truly believe MM understood what life of a royal consort entails, more so as wife to a younger son who will never inherit.

As an American idea of precedence is totally foreign to MM; but she would have to give way (and crane her neck) to not just KM, but York princesses and every single other member of BRF who out ranks her.

Finally as tittle-tattle released by Diana , Princess of Wales spilled out the Windsor-Mountbatten family is almost everything one would find in "House of Cards" or "To Play The King".

Am not saying BRF don't get on and love each other as a family should, but they aren't the Waltons either.

MM would have done well to prepare for her role by reading Edith Wharton (the Buccaneers), and or period accounts of many American heiresses or other women who married into British aristocracy. In short you don't marry into a family that is an institution with traditions that go back hundreds of years and expect everything to be about "you". Things move as they always have done; it is up to "you" to find/carve out a role for yourself within that framework.

Even watching "Rebecca" with the trails of second Mrs. DeWinter would have taught MM something.

Oh if one could play "Mrs. Danvers" to MM's "Rebecca", I'd have her out that window ship sinking out at sea or not. *LOL*

[quote]In short you don't marry into a family that is an institution with traditions that go back hundreds of years and expect everything to be about "you".

Oh, NOW you tell me! Couldn't you have warned me before I encountered the bitchy mother-in-law?

I agree w/ R361. Like a lot of things in life, the ideas look good enough on paper, but the actualities are very different. Borrowing from a legitimate source on royal like, The Crown (kidding), the hardest part of Royal life is not saying anything or having an opinion. That just isn't going to work for a late 30's, self made women who had to claw her way up the ranks in Hollywood. We can argue that it seems like a terrible fit for such a person, but I think most of us would be willing to roll the dice for a chance to marry a prince and live a royal life. The press has been shitty to Meghan and Harry, but it was made worse by bucking the royal trends early in their marriage (the pregnancy announcement at Eug's wedding, the delivery/baby arrival announcement or lack of, withholding the godparents, etc).

R363 the press has been bad, but she also went out of her way to make herself an easy target.

Prince Charles needs to cut them loose. MeAgain is a very vain girl. The older she gets, the more cosmetic surgery she will want to get and she won't be making enough to pay for it herself.

"I've come to the conclusion that there are some places Americans simply do not belong and the BRF is one of the(m)"

That's what I said when they were engaged, no American is going to be happy trying to fit into a hierarchy fixed by birth, particularly a seriously ambitious one. Even unambitious Americans are used to the idea that if we get our shit together we can advance through hard work and working the angles, and Meghan is, duh, ambitious.

Still, most of us would probably marry Harry anyway. I mean he's hot, he'll do whatever a stronger personality tells him to, and it'd be such an adventure to leave our ordinary lives and see how the other 1% lives.

'UK WILL ALWAYS BE MY HOME' Prince Harry tells of ‘great sadness’ at losing HRH title but he had ‘no other option’ in emotional speech at The Ivy

The Duke of Sussex said Britain "is my home...that will never change" but claimed he had "no other option" than to quite his Royal duties in a charity dinner at celeb haunt The Ivy, in Chelsea.

Speaking at a dinner for his charity Sentebale, Harry said: "It brings me great sadness that it has come to this.

"The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly.

"It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges.

"I know I haven't always got it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option."

Harry dined at the upmarket restaurant - where a rib eye steak costs £30 - with his former mentor Mark Dyer, who was seen looking dapper in a blue suit.

Mr Dyer was today revealed to be one of baby Archie's mystery godparents alongside the Duke's former nanny Tiggy Pettifer.

It has been reported that Harry is throwing a farewell Megxit party - as he plans to exit the country and join wife Meghan in Canada.

Socialite Tamara Beckwith, who rose to fame in the 1990s as an IT girl alongside the late-Tara Palmer Tomkinson, was also seen arriving at the restaurant.

R367

[quote] "I know I haven't always got it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option."

Drama queen! Of course there were other options.

The Sun's headline is misleading. Harry didn't say he was sad to lose his HRH, but to leave the institution of the monarchy.

Trying to upstage the pedo's heifer daughter wasn't her intention. I've seen this go on in families and it's normal and only a dysfunctional, envious bunch of sniveling cowards would accuse someone of upstaging a wedding with a baby announcement.

You have to be pretty insecure to bitch about that as a bride, but hey, we know what these folks are like. Vipers. Her mistake was in seeing them as a family instead of the desperate, grasping welfare recipients they really are.

No one cared about that wedding, but they had it because they had to try and keep upstaging HER. So sad, really, when it would have been so much easier to make her an ally. Those poor girls keep trying to be part of the working crew and failing. Now you know why.

What r367 posted. Harry is a moron, he doesn't want to leave the UK, he doesn't want to give up being an active royal, yet he's doing it all because Meghan can't be bothered to adjust because she'd prefer to be in Hollywood.

R371 = another dimwit American who knows nothing about the royal family.

Backbiting, back stabbing royals have always been that way.

Girl should have told the Prince to take a hike early on, imo. That family and those traditions are all about stealing, pillaging, and doing what they damn well please behind the scenes.

Suck my toes, trolls.

I wonder what Sad Harry thinks about Meghan going all out in the media over the last few days.

Tampon Charlie, Kate's tits and ass all over the news and you trolls bring up a pregnancy? Idiots are everywhere, but it seems like we've discovered the breeding grounds in Britain.

Maybe that phony Attenborough will do a quaint little piece on the origins of Blighty bullshit.

Harry's speech was a sad one.

You mean Sir Richard Attenborough? He's been dead for almost 6 years, so that would be quite a trick.

R372 I guess you didn't listen to Harry's speech or if you did, you didn't understand his message. HE made the decision.

Right, and your point, R378 is on top of your head along with his brother, David.

I recall reading, maybe months ago, that the Queen was very fond of Meghan Markle. The piece I read said they were "thick as thieves." How times have changed! Actually, that was no doubt PR bullshit. Meghan Markle has been a thorn in the Queen's side ever since she came upon the scene. And these latest developments simply cement the fact that her presence has been a disaster to the royal family. Boy, dimwit Harry sure has made a mess of things. Takes after his Mommy a lot in that regard.

R377

As it should have been; PH is about to pack up and leave home and country for a future unknown not only on a bad note, but with considerable bad taste in many mouths.

It is one thing to say one doesn't wish to be royal, living such a life however is going to be an adjustment. PH must also know that absence does not always make hearts grow fonder. More time he is away from UK as things go on he will become like his great uncle duke of Windsor; someone people know of as a member of BRF but with little relevance to their daily lives. This could come back to haunt PH in future should he ever need something; there just might not be public support for "who, him what ran away to USA/Canada?"

How long is this good-bye tour going to last? I mean when does PH leave Heathrow bringing curtain down on this sad and pathetic drama? Or is this going to be dragged on for months as duke of Sussex tours the provinces.

R379 Harry would NEVER admit that he didn't make the decision. He had to buy into her demands, so yes, he did decide. But not like he's making it try to sound.

They will be fine. Netflix is interested. They'll present documentaries on various issues and be paid exceptionally well.

From the Guardian:

Netflix is among global companies already eyeing them up. The streaming giant’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, said of working with the couple: “Who wouldn’t be interested? Yes, sure.”

Their soon-to-be new status as non-working royals could see them following the example of former US first couple, Barack and Michelle Obama, who agreed a production deal with Netflix to make TV and film projects.

The couple were unwilling to subject themselves to any financial scrutiny or review in future contracts they struck. The trade-off was they could not use their HRH styles, though they retain them.

R112 You are wrong. William promised Diana that he would restore her HRH after he became the king.

So there is no need for H&M to live in Canada, right? They may as well just move to Malibu now.

For anyone who believes this arrangement was Harry's idea, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[quote] They will be fine. Netflix is interested. They'll present documentaries on various issues and be paid exceptionally well.

They will host a travelogue of Africa. There will be lots of smiling kids playing soccer and Meghan will visit lots of immaculate NGOs.

R198 Virginia was 17 but she was trafficked overseas to have sex with Prince Andrew. He hasn't been found guilty because law enforcement in the UK and US won't charge him solely because he is part of the RF

R386 is correct, and it has been discussed on DL previously.

Diana was gobsmacked and quite bowled over when informed she was losing her royal status; at which point PW piped up with he would get it back when he became king.

As also discussed previously on DL Diana out smarted herself; HM was willing to make her a royal princess in her own right so she could continue being "princess Diana". But PC was against that idea and was pushing to have Diana lose her royal status. Meanwhile Diana released a statement saying post divorce she would be known as "Diana, Princess of Wales".... That was all certain circles needed to go ahead with push to remove Diana's royal status.

R379, as another poster has pointed out, Harry would never admit it wasn't his idea and he's hardly likely to say "Meghan's the one who wants to leave the UK and make money off the royal name". I also find it a bit difficult to believe that the idea of abandoning the UK and commercialising his royal heritage came out of his head.

In any case, there's a difference between deciding you have to do something and actually wanting to do it.

R379, as another poster has pointed out, Harry would never admit it wasn't his idea and he's hardly likely to say "Meghan's the one who wants to leave the UK and make money off the royal name". I also find it a bit difficult to believe that the idea of abandoning the UK and commercialising his royal heritage came out of his head.

In any case, there's a difference between deciding you have to do something and actually wanting to do it.

R287 Why on earth won't William get hair plugs or at least wear a toupee?!

R378 The poster was referring to Sir David Attenborough, not Richard. David is very much alive and produces documentaries about animals. You didnt get the poster's joke.

R381 Harry said that Diana and Meghan would be thick as thieves" not the Queen. He said it in the televised engagement interview when Meghan was sitting beside him.

"Harry said that Diana and Meghan would be thick as thieves" not the Queen. He said it in the televised engagement interview when Meghan was sitting beside him."

What I read wasn't a quote from Harry. It was from some article that stated the Queen and Markle were "thick as thieves", and it was accompanied by that photo of them sitting together (the Queen was attired head to toe in a lime green outfit). It said:

"Meghan Markle and the Queen were all smiles when they appeared together in Cheshire less than a month after the Suits star’s marriage to Prince Harry.

Queen Elizabeth and the Duchess of Sussex appeared as thick as thieves, giggling and chatting as they made their first joint appearance."

I guess they're not that chummy anymore.

I see the fans are changing H's speech. You know it because they include non-words such as gotten . But will they love him post divorce? I noticed he invoked Diana again, what a twat,

R346 - What do you mean "they", kemo sabe?

R394 - Because he looks great bald.

R398, “gotten” is Old Norse, and was good British English through the 17th century. I realize that now it’s seen as a crass Americanism, but it’s a real word.

R400 Uh, no.

R397 She was all smiles with Trump. It's part of the job, even when Mango Mussolini fist-bumped her.

William of Bald is the oldest looking 37 year old in England.

r401. nice try be we don't speak ancient norse,and we aren't living in the 1600's,

[quote]And as far as "toxic environments" go, Beverly Hills doesn't look to me like much of an improvement over royal life in Britain. Chris Hemsworth moved his family back to Australia to keep his kids out of it.

great post at r341. So true; if H&M found the UK wanting in terms of comfort and "solace", wtf do they think LA will be like? The US has tabloids too; and LA is FULL of paps.

No one believes they'll stay in Canada long. Vancouver is stopover on the way to Cali.

r06, Is that not a song? California here i come right back where I started from,or some such.

How very far he's fallen. No more cute media opps with Gran

Interesting choice of godmother (Tiggy - Charle's nanny for the boys when they were separated), but that is no shade on Harry. I remember reading that Diana hated Tiggy and apparently concocted a story in her mind that Charles had gotten Tiggy knocked up, had an abortion, and Diana decided to confront her about it at a Christmas party or something. Apparently she walked into a party, whispered ""So sorry about the baby" and then left. The Queen was pissed!

Wikipedia:

On 20 November 1995, a sensational interview with the Princess of Wales was broadcast by the BBC.[17] The strife between Charles and Diana became public as never before, and Diana's famous "there were three of us in this marriage" undoubtedly referred to Parker-Bowles. There was no mention of Legge-Bourke.[23] However, on 24 January 1996, newspapers named Diana as the source of an untrue rumour circulated in November and December 1995 that Legge-Bourke had become pregnant by Charles and had had an abortion.[25] It was reported that words had been exchanged between Diana and Legge-Bourke on the matter at a party on 14 December 1995, when Diana had said to her "So sorry about the baby",[26] and an "informed source" was quoted as saying "The Queen was absolutely furious and totally in sympathy with Tiggy."[25] On 18 December 1995, Legge-Bourke, with the Queen's agreement, instructed the libel lawyer Peter Carter-Ruck to write to Diana's solicitors demanding an apology, asking that the accusation be "recognized to be totally untrue".[25]

Dan Wootton at the Sun (who broke the whole Megxit story first) has a story up stating William and Harry came together in recent days to 'broker a truce' between them, before Harry moved away. Some of the bitterness was calmed, but for whatever reason things are still 'difficult' between both men and their father Charles.

This echos the recent piece by Camilla Tominey in the Spectator (posted in one of these threads) that also said the main rift is between both sons and Dad, and not necessarily between Harry and William as has been popularly portrayed.

'The US has tabloids too; and LA is FULL of paps.'

Who cares? She doesn't object to being papped, she objects to all the stupid narrative that goes with it about how her clothes aren't royal enough or how Kate looks so much more suitable. She won't get those from the LA paps.

Please also bear in mind that she was in LA for six weeks at the end of 2019 and managed to avoid being papped completely, so it's certainly not a foregone conclusion that they'll find her. It's a car culture there and many celebs go from private underground garage to private underground garage without ever being photographed.

Of course R411 they can go unpapped in LA. But who says she wants that?

Every A-lister - or their pr team - has a pap on payroll and on call. Every one. She will be no different.

R411, she was in Canada, not LA

The Queen has just ordered that Meghan return to her original nose.

[quote] you're looking at an article published prior to the wedding. Yes, it [the Mountbatten-Markle wedding] brought in over a BILLION.

As I said, those estimates are ridiculous, completely unproven and plucked out of thin air, R312. Go on, prove that it brought "over a billion" or even "a billion" :).

"Americans really need to get to grips with the concept of succession and the monarch."

NO THE FUCK WE DONT!

[quote] In any case certainly far more than the cost of the wedding and their subsequent payments. Which is why it's so disengenuous to have penny pinchers suddenly complaining about the Frogmore renovations or the cost of their security. You don't really care about it. You're just using it as a cudgel to beat them with because you're so emotionally involved that you can't admit they have or will do any good whatsoever.

No, R312, the cost of paying for Dimwit (a mere 6th-in-line, who shouldn't be paid for at all) and his trophy wife, and their breeding habits, and their security, and their travel, and their house upkeep, and their staff, etc - for the rest of their long selfish lives is far greater than anything that their wedding celebration generated. As CNN reported, no royal wedding in history provided long-term gains. Even big sporting events (like the Football Association (FA) Cup) generate more.

You're just being a boot-licker for Dimwit :).

Di is spinning in her grave at how stupid Harry is.

r418, Harry divorced the royal family according to the Diana playbook.

Harry truly is the Prince of Hearts, the PEOPLE'S prince!

R419 Honey, Di also had a billionaire ready to support her. Circumstances are just a little different.

R417 when you can't say their actual names in your rant, everything you type becomes meaningless. You've revealed yourself as an unhinged troll.

R414 oh please, there's a ton of articles on it after the fact about how much money it brought in - way more than the cost of the wedding and everything they've received since before or after. Now you're just being intellectually lazy and emotional because you can't stand to give them any credit.

^ r415

"I know I haven't always got it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option." - my family wouldn't cave to the demands of my ball busting wife - who possibly saw that coming?

R422, how exactly did H&M's wedding bring money in, let alone a billion pounds? Did millions of tourists flock from to England to stand outside St George's chapel just to spot the newly-weds as they stepped out?

[quote] oh please, there's a ton of articles on it after the fact about how much money it brought in - way more than the cost of the wedding and everything they've received since before or after. Now you're just being intellectually lazy and emotional because you can't stand to give them any credit.

R422, you're the one being intellectually lazy. You still haven't proven your hilarious, unsubstantiated claim that the Markle-Mountbatten wedding "brought in over a billion". You state it as a fact ("yes, it brought in over a billion") and yet there's no proof.

All those "articles" (which you don't even link because you're that lazy) are repeating a far-fetched, off-the-wall estimate by one single small consultancy established in 1996.

[quote] you can't stand to give them any credit.

Lol, what "credit"? The only thing Mountbatten and Markle did was give each other blowjobs. The ONLY reason their wedding got any publicity was because Henry has a famous GRANDMA. Without his famous granny, there wouldn't even be a grand, tax-sponsored wedding - it would be like Markle's first wedding where nobody even gave a heck about her and her first husband (they'd be lucky if they were even mentioned in TMZ). And even Markle wouldn't give a dunce like Henry a second look if it wasn't for who his granny is.

Haha, you trolls really can't say anything good about them. You have Markle Derangement Syndrome. Cause: Racism, Classism, and anti-Hollywood bias. Continue contorting yourself in knots trying to pretend that the Royal wedding was a loss for "the taxpayers".

I suggest a few rounds of shock treatment to loosen your clogged humours.

Harry's boot-licking troll @ R427, I'm still waiting for your to prove your laughable claim that the Mountbatten-Markle wedding "brought in over a billion". You stated it as a fact ("yes, it brought in over a billion") - now prove it.

Of course you can't - so now you're trying to back-track and obfuscate by throwing a hissy-fit and calling everyone else "deranged" - because you can't prove your own claims. How embarrassing for you, dear.

Edit: "How exactly did H&M's wedding bring money in, let alone a billion pounds? Did millions of tourists flock from abroad to England to stand outside St George's chapel just to spot the newly-weds as they stepped out?"

Still waiting for r422 to answer that.

I only feel sympathy for Harry here, being exposed to the odour of Boris Johnson's armpits.

R429 because it wasn't worth responding to. You didn't say anything other than displaying how little your knowledge is of how economies work.

How embarrassing that R431 cites a GUESSTIMATE by one single consultancy - a consultancy that even self-confessed that its previous GUESSTIMATE may be wrong. Look at the disclaimer-full, non-committed choice of vague words in that article:

“The couple’s big day is LIKELY to provide a boost of 1.05 billion pounds, or $1.43 billion, to the U.K. economy, according to [one single] consulting firm Brand Finance. The consultancy has double its ESTIMATE, after initially PREDICTING an uplift of about £500 million. “Purely the amount of coverage that the royal wedding has got MADE US THINK MAYBE we were underestimating it,” said Richard Haigh, managing director at Brand Finance.”

Posters asked you for proof for what you claimed as a FACT, R431 - not for non-committal “made us think maaaaybe” stab-in-the-dark guesses taken out of thin air.

R414 - "The Queen has ordered that Meghan return to her original nose"

No, her original hair.

R430 - Oh, I don't know. Boris' armpits don't look nearly as fetid as Harry's wife's did on her last public appearance as a functional royal before blowing town with the goods . . .

[quote] displaying how little your knowledge is of how economies work.

That's you, dear R431 - not knowing how economies work. Here's an example of how BS that so-called 'valuation' is from that single consultancy firm:

[quote] £250 million boost to retail/restaurants: A recent survey found about 40% of Britons were interested in the wedding, and that amounts to roughly 25 million people, [that single consultancy] told MarketWatch. IF EACH PERSON is inspired to SOMEHOW spend an extra £10, that works out to £250 million.

Lol. Well that's a huge "IF" disclaimer. How do they know that the people who were interested in watching the televised wedding would want to BUY anything? The people who were interested already got what they wanted (watched the fancy wedding on a FREEVIEW channel, it's over) - they don't necessarily have any need for anything extra.

And as experts warned - any splurge in spending during past royal events was simply OFFSET by a slump (people spending LESS than average) the following month.

Oh dear -"the decision I made for my wife and I to step back"....."grateful for the support they have shown Meghan and I"......tsk, tsk, not exactly the Queen's English, there, Harry.

Meghan SO wrote that speech, ha.

R436 - I don't know what is worse: Harry's and Meghan's inability to speak decent English, or the hypocrisy behind is statement, which is really just another, "Oh, Poor We! We tried, we really did, and we so HATED taking money from the public, but what could we do?"

As if, you know, they would ever in their right minds have even considered paying back the funding for the renovation of their home if the Queen and Charles hadn't told them that if that wasn't part of the public deal, HM and Papa would cut them off without a shilling.

She married him for luxurious living, designer clothes, staff, travel, and having what she wants done when she wants it done - all on someone else's penny.

I wonder he had the cheek to make another Oh Pity Us speech and try to pretend that their excitement about working for the Queen and Commonwealth really wore off in a year - because only people who'd had it in mind to ditch the whole thing for quite some time would have ditched it that fast.

The only justification I can really understand for the Queen's, Charles', and William's agreeing to this sham of an "agreement", particularly leaving them their HRHs AND the right to use Sussex for commercial gain, is a judgement, not entirely without merit, that whatever it costs to get the viper out of the bosom of the family and out of Britain is worth it.

Whether, in the end, it really was worth it in terms of the public's disgust at another revelation of how fundamentally "unfair" the whole monarchical thing is, remains to be seen, but it's a fair point.

^*this statement

R436 He made the same mistake twice, using "I" instead of "me."

R439 Further evidence that the speech was NOT written by a pro speech writer, i.e., Megs.

[quote] She would have been the first longstanding HRH American POC. No matter what the hysterical Celebitchy people say, I believe the world and Americans in general were rooting for her success. Not that the world cards, but I do think there is maybe a shared disappointment among Americans who were rooting for her.

R349, you make really good points. I don't think Meghan could have understood how confining the role would be. You relinquish all autonomy and personal choice. We've witnessed how hard it was for Fergie and Diana, and they were British and had their own family infrastructure that was supportive of the monarchy. Diana is dead, and Fergie lives her life under a cloud of shade/scorn/disdain.

The British media was brutal and unkind to Meghan, and diabolically, even enlisted her own family in their smear campaign. It is shameful and disgusting how horrible her (white) family has been to her. On the other hand, I think the people who she cared about her, and those that supported her, were perhaps less impressed with the whole royal thing. It was cute for a minute but clearly wasn't a lifestyle she could sustain. I am very sympathetic to Meghan as that institution has ruined so many lives. I am glad she got away. I am rooting for H&M but frankly wouldn't care if M leaves H behind.

R431, and you obviously don't know how media hype in the runup to an event works. As another poster said, this is just one guesstimate by one small consultancy seeking to use the pre-wedding hype to advertise itself, in an article written by a journalist using the event to get some more bylines.

The wedding was over 18 months ago, enough time for valuations on what the royal wedding actually brought in. The media has been somewhat quiet on that front though.

[quote]I do think there is maybe a shared disappointment among Americans who were rooting for her.

It's not hyperbole to say that literally every American I have seen talking about this online has been either very supportive of her, or has been one of the hardcore haters.

We had a war to rid ourselves of the royals, if you remember. Most Americans either don't care about the royalty or actively dislike it.

[quote]It is shameful and disgusting how horrible her (white) family has been to her.

That was her own doing. Her father treated her very well when she was growing up and then when she got famous she abandoned him. If she truly loved him, she would have prepared him. You can't marry a Prince and not expect the press to go digging for dirt. What support did her father have in navigating how to respond to the press?

[quote]I am very sympathetic to Meghan as that institution has ruined so many lives. I am glad she got away.

She knew what she was getting into. Diana left enough research material behind via interviews and books for anyone to realize what they were stepping into. And she didn't "get away." It's not something she was born into. It was a decision she herself made. One might even say that she didn't even give that lifestyle a fair chance before she ditched it. At least Diana lived it for several years before she bailed out. MeAgain didn't even give it two years.

I read reports that Charles is gonna support them $$$ for 1 year...I can't believe this useless cunt, should be ashamed of himself, can't do nothing.

Also read they are setting up a production company.

I wonder if Harry is gonna miss his horses and polo matches. He is gonna be so bored.

R432 and r437 are so pressed and put so much time into their long posts that no one is going to read! Go and get that economics doctorate real quick, and we will wait right here for you to come back and regale us with your insight, once you have actual knowledge.

"Sorry, guys. The show started off really strong on the first episode, but viewership has dropped to shit levels since then. What y'all going to do now? HEY DR PHIL! I NEED A FOOT RUB!! Steadman will see you both out...."

I think they got what they wanted. They don't have to have the palace approving all of their contracts, and they don't have to do all the stupid handshaking events for THE QUEEN. They don't get to use their HRHes but no one really cares about that except the obsessives and classists who wouldn't respect them anyway because of her racial background and class background and his "spare" status.

That must make the anti-Meghan freaks so angry! They know the Sussexes won, so they're doing this "long game" b.s. to console themselves with their fantasies of Meghan being led in chains through the streets of London for her execution at the Tower.

On the other hand, r448, Harry isn't used to failure. They may have what they wanted for now, but their entire revenue stream will now depend on Meghan as he really doesn't have any skills outside of the Royal Family. They are two people who haven't yet produced anything substantial on their own. So they better make and keep their rich friends because no bank is willingly going to lend them start up capital for whatever she dreams their financial independence to be. Both are dark horses where business and charities are concerned.

A DM headline up now: The Queen 'considered stripping Harry and Meghan of Sussex titles and HRH but feared looking "petty"'

[quote] Go and get that economics doctorate real quick, and we will wait right here for you to come back and regale us with your insight, once you have actual knowledge … Go get that degree now!

Lol, R446 must have received his “economics doctorate” at the University of Trump and his “knowledge” at the now-disgraced auditor Arthur Andersen LLP :). That’s where they ‘taught’ you to misrepresent guesstimates as facts, eh.

It’s because of gullible people like R446 (who faithfully believe unproven, thirsty guesstimates) that the financial crisis of ’08 happened.

R4449, I like your post. I was thinking to myself that if there was one person I had to choose to stake my revenue stream on as a partner, it would Meghan for sure. Deal or no deal to Duchess to potential Hollywood titan. If Harry truly wanted out and was going to go down this bumpy path, I guess Meghan is probably the best woman to hitch his wagon to. I would just want it in writing that I get half of Meghan's earnings and would have my name on every deal that she inks.

Has Janbot had a change of heart, and become the Meghan Fangirl?

Similar prose style, same hissy fits when nobody agrees with him, same propensity to worship some horrible woman as a Diva and insist that everyone join him or be screamed at.

And we haven't been seeing the usual number of Janet Jackson fan posts...

R451 is clearly drunk on his morning Chablis. I'm sure that's why he never graduated university! It was the struggle against alcoholism.

R453 you sound like the unhinged poster who rushes to every personal thread to accuse it of being an EST. I'm not surprised you are also an anti-Meghan freak.

A thoughtful and sympathetic column from the Telegraph that characterizes the reality they will encounter and the mountain of unhappiness, frustration, embarrassment and shame that is going to come Harry's way. Even a marriage based on love would struggle to survive the reality that lies ahead:

"he is leaving a structured, cloistered existence within a very narrow social circle in England for a ruthless North American meritocracy that will be thousands of miles apart in attitudes and culture.

I lived in Hollywood for roughly a year; I really like Hollywood people. They might seem vapid but most of them come from absolutely nothing and are self-made – and they are often intellectually sophisticated. Harry has two A-levels and likes playing polo. The only polo in Los Angeles is the Ralph Lauren store on Rodeo Drive.

Once the mystique of the monarchy is removed from someone they inevitably become diminished. I’m sorry, really sorry, it’s just what happens. When the Obamas met the Sussexes in the past, the honour was the Obamas’, but now, if they meet again, the honour will belong to the Sussexes because Barack and Michelle are Harvard graduates who ran the most powerful nation on Earth, whereas Meghan does voiceover work and Harry, er...

“Remind me, Harry, what do you do?”

I guess grifter cannot have pity for the victim or it won't work. Ouch. Cold.

"They don't have to have the palace approving all of their contracts, and they don't have to do all the stupid handshaking events for THE QUEEN. They don't get to use their HRHes but no one really cares about that except the obsessives and classists who wouldn't respect them anyway because of her racial background and class background and his "spare" status."

They don't have the palace approving each contract they hope to get because the palace has already laid down which kinds of contracts they are not permitted to even consider in the first place. There will also be a review in a year's time of how this arrangement is going.

The duties Harry performed as a royal were not handshaking or ribbon cutting. Just in the past few days they included announcing the rugby league matches and attending an important summit between the UK government and African leaders in parliament. His duties also included all Harry's military patronages and patronages, which are very important to him.

Yes, losing the use of HRH is extremely important because that is the title that gives them the right to represent the monarch, i.e. the head of state. These are often diplomatic duties. The title HRH is obviously very important to Harry because it was all over sussexroyal.com and, aside from the sentimental value, he hoped to use it to increase his market value. He still has the Sussex name, which he trademarked for commercial purposes.

If you don't think Harry venerates the British class system and the royalty then you're very naive. No one in the UK discriminated against Meghan on the basis of her relentlessly-mentioned by her supporters racial background. That is an American obsession.

Edit: "His duties also included all Harry's military duties and patronages, which are very important to him."

There are polo games at Will Rogers State Park in Santa Monica. Harry can play there.

R454 = "unhinged", hysterical Mountbatten-bootlicker having a hissy-fit meltdown after being exposed as a gullible amateur at "economics". How embarrassing for R454. You seem to be more of an 'expert' at "alcoholism", dear - so go pour yourself another one :).

yeah, I read he won't be able to wear military uniform in future.

It's a new start...if you're a glass half full type of person.

"...he is leaving a structured, cloistered existence within a very narrow social circle in England for a ruthless North American meritocracy that will be thousands of miles apart in attitudes and culture."

Well, that's the thing. She couldn't fit into his culture, what makes anyone think he could possibly fit into hers?

She's got to be the more adaptable one by far, every good climber has got to be able to change to fit into new environments, and even she couldn't make a go of living the Royal life. Harry's not going to be able to fit into anything resembling a meritocracy or a shark tank, he's spent his whole life in hierarchies where obedience is required, he won't have the beginning of a grasp of American or LA social life.

I can't even bother to argue with Les Megarables. Monarchy won, Douchess 0.

Enjoy your anger, Megastan, as your icon slides into the same irrelevance you chafe under each day. xo

and even she couldn't make a go of living the Royal life

I don't think she really wanted to "make a go" of it-- I think it was her plan all along to raise her profile, etc. and then cut and run.

The grass is always greener on the other side...

[quote]I don't think she really wanted to "make a go" of it-- I think it was her plan all along to raise her profile, etc. and then cut and run.

I always thought this was her plan, I just didn't think she would do it so quickly. I thought she'd build a bit more goodwill before she did it.

Something must have triggered her.

I just hope she's OK.

BTW I am making up a schedule so we can ask if she's OK via her Instagram. Please sign up for a few shifts but don't say you'll do it if you don't intend to. Not a lot of people have asked if she's OK.

She's certainly provided some golden memes (Is he kind? / No one asks if I'm okay). I wonder if there'll be more.

R450 - And if you believe that HM considered for a nanosecond stripping Harry of his HRH that he was born with, or the ducal title that also carries HRH with, I have a rundown vintage pile with more than 600 rooms in central London with a spectacular view of the Mall from the front balcony going cheap - needs a bit of TLC, but ....

She can't strip Harry of the HRH he was born with without a much better reason than we've seen so far. He'd have had to pass state secrets to Putin to merit that OR have volunteered to surrender the natal HRH in exchange for a guarantee of far more extensive lifetime funding from Papa that will not cease with William's ascension to the throne.

What HM should have and could have quite reasonably done, given that she only gave them the Sussex title two years ago, is insist that they surrender that or she'd rescind it by Letters Patent, stop them from using Sussex, and tell them tough shit re making it necessary to revamp their marketing plans around Prince and Princess Henry, which is who they would have been without the ducal title that HM gave Harry on his wedding day.

The fact that she fobbed off the public with that weak, "not using" the HRHs but keeping them AND the Sussex title tells you just how much more wedded they are to their traditional privileges than to any accountability that matters.

R468 - You forgot, "It's not working for me."

William is allegedly a philandering cunt behind the scenes.

R98 - I think this whole mess will eventually come back to bite Willie with the Wandering Scepter, and to some degree Cathy Cambridge, in the ass very hard.

The British tabloids must beat up on someone daily to generate revenue producing clicks.

R471 - Will and Kate send their love.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Liz fucked up. If she had just let them stay in London instead of banishing them to Frogmore, she might have stalled their departure and had time to put a better plan in place. Making them live at Frogmore just hastened their departure.

I think Harry will be most hurt by losing his military titles and not being able to wear the uniform again. He loved being in the army...

There is no way he will be happy in Canada.

Yes, he will carry on for his son but deep down he will never be. He will find out for himself that "normal" life ain't that great. He will miss his family and "friends" so much.

I hope he gets therapy.

I doubt he'll be in Canada for very long, R475, it's just a stepping stone, a transition place. They couldn't just run off to the US, Canada, being commonwealth makes for a nice half-in, half-out destination. They'll eventually go to California where they'll be happier. I've got nothing against BC, it's a lovely place, but it's not glamorous enough for celebs. Remember how much David Duchovny hated it there while filming the X Files?? Regular people move to Canada, not celebs with endless amounts of money.

Come on now. You guys know damn well that the whole family were cunts to her, especially Willis. That chick didn't stand on that balcony surrounded by them while crying for nothing. The Queen CAN be a cunt, herself. Nevertheless, it takes two to tango - I just know, know, know that those folks have a few audio files with Meghan's voice talking all kinds of shit. They're pissed for a good reason!

Harry's not a celebrity, R476. If he's unhappy in BC he'll be wretched in L.A.

She's an actress, those whores are supposed to be able to cry at the drop of the hat.

Anything can set them off. Everything is about them. If you comment on something within a group of people, they are gonna think you're talking about them even if you aren't. You can't win with these people. You tell them they look great today, they will think, "does that mean I didn't look good yesterday?"

So a lot of these perceived "hurts" are imaginary...

I went to school with many drama majors...I know them too well.

....

....

It is a bit sad, Harry leaving this way. I'm reminded of the final scene of "The Graduate."

R477 - She was fucking crying on that balcony because her fucking husband snapped at her. You can see it in the video.

The Queen and Charles bent over backwards to be nice to her. She repaid them by arguing with the Queen about which tiara she wanted at the wedding and announcing her pregnancy through her maternity coat (over a nonexistent bump) AT the Queen's granddaughter's televised wedding.

William got her number early on and yeah, probably saw the handwriting on the wall and didn't make a secret of it.

The only cunt in sight was the L.A. grifter.

Calm down, R483, and remember to always bring your sense of humour when you visit DL!

R484 - all right, all right, if you insist.

It just happens that that video was one of the primo moments of the Harry and Meghan Saga. It was so clear that Harry snapped at her, I actually felt sorry for her, with all those post-pregnancy hormones swirling (my niece cried at anything for quite some time after my great-niece was born) and her fact still puffy and her clothes uncomfortable, and the relatives within earshot. You can see her eyes glistening with tears as she turns around.

I don't hold with bad manners even toward people I don't like, and especially in public places. I actually felt somewhat chivalrously - and that's not something Meghan regularly calls up in me - that I should have liked to box his ears.

One thing I remember in retrospect, though: it was the moment of the flyover at the Trooping, and you know how Harry feels about the military. It probably is true that it is killing him to leave all that behind.

^*face still puffy

R485, she's an actress, they are extra sensitive, they are very raw emotionally. They cry very, very easily. It's their job.

Can somebody link this video of Harry snapping and Meghan crying? I don't think I've seen it.

If you just google Meghan Crying on Balcony you'll come up with the still photos. I don't know how to link, sorry. But even the stills make it clear that she turns around to say something to him, he reprimands her and scowls and she turns around and her expression is just crushed and you can see tears shining in her eyes.

A cad's still a cad even if he did marry a goldigging grifter.

Here R488

It was at that moment that Meghan decided to have a fake baby

And that is also when Donald Trump finally became President

'Harry's not a celebrity, [R476]. If he's unhappy in BC he'll be wretched in L.A.'

Harry is a celebrity in every single sense of the word. He always said he didn't like living in England and would travel and tour as much as he could. Now he can live where he wants, even different places year round. He has friends and contacts all over the damn world so this image of Poor Harry Who Only Has Four London Mates is absolutely ridiculous.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r468, you can't swing a cat in these tiny wimbledon stands.

Meh, the royals barking at each other while on the balcony is practically a tradition. I remember when William was trying to attend to one of his toddler kids & Granny Queen snapped at him & told him to stand up. Did he cry? NO!

Was it Emma or Wincey Willis that was so awful to them? r477

Totally concur with r485, excellent description of what transpired in the video at r490. Megs is immature in many ways imo, but Harry was a real bitch to her that day on the balcony. You can see his face like absolute thunder at her at :53 and :54.

She clearly was uncertain of what to do, and wanted off the balcony, not aware (not unusual, as she was new to the BRF) that he national anthem was cued up to be played any second. Harry snapped at her to 'turn around' lest she be seen with her back turned during the anthem - a major faux pas that would the UK media would have dined out on for days.

She was newly post-partum, clearly puffy and uncomfortable. Don't blame her for wanting to get off the balcony and back inside. H. could have shown some restraint there. A rare instance where I feel completely sorry for Meghan.

Well, her role as a Royal sure didn't last long, did it? I'm not surprised. She's an actress; actresses are a truly self-absorbed lot. They want what they want when they want it. Of course that isn't possible as a royal, so now she's convinced Dimwit that the thing to do is be "independent", in other words, rich without the responsibilities of being a member of the Royal family. This does not bode well. It does not.

ouch

Meghan papped out on private walk with Archie and her dogs, in Vancouver.

Pundits in the thread rightly note that this kind of privacy violation wouldn't have happened in the UK, where royals are mostly protected from pap intrusion when off-duty. Rare to see pap pics of the royals there.

This will be H&M's reality going forward.

R500 You are so naive to think it's pap pics. It's obviously taken by her PR people.

You may be correct r500. I just wanted to post the link to the photos and the comments.

On the bright side, it appears that Guy the Beagle is still with us (?), and didn't meet his grisly end as was rumored a few years ago. His first public sighting in some time.

You guys have to see the full balcony video. Search it. Anne bolts away from Meghan like she's gonna catch scabies and her expression is priceless. Meghan wanted out because of the way she was being treated. However, I again assert that the likely had reason.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Every since I saw R490's link of Ginger's frosty balcony behaviour toward Megs, I can't get beyond the thought that all of us - the media, the BRF, the pundits, the Twitterai, DLers - ALL of us have got this whole Sussex extravaganza completely wrong. That like Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz, we've been looking at the razzle dazzle, instead of what's going on behind the curtain.

That far from being a naive fuckwit, Ginger knew exactly with whom he had business in Megs, succumbed to her charms, reeled her in for his OWN purposes. That he was looking for a means to royally *ahem* fuck his Father and Brother for his on-going discontent and anger about his late Mum, his increasingly irrelevant "spare" status, and his restrictive royal status, in general. That he found in Megs the perfect weapon to bludgeon his reserved, publicity squeamish family and get back some of his own. That Meg's ignorance and appalling behaviour was just what he needed to well and truly stick it to his family.

This is not to say that Megs doesn't have her own grifter fish to fry. But I think that rather than Ginger being Megs mark, both of them are marks for one another, both are using one another to accomplish their own personal goals. Megs believes that Ginger is a means to an end, and Ginger believes the same about Megs. The difference is of course that Ginger will eventually return to his family, having well and truly made his point about their - especially his Father and Brother - treatment of him. Megs will of course move on to find another mark.

And Archie? Well, he was simply the inadvertent mark of two self-absorbed, immature people. The BRF will be left to deal with him.

Meh, Harry wasn't being "frosty" or whatever to Meghan on the balcony, he just wanted her to look ahead and not have her back turned as the national anthem played. That's not just a strict rule but it's rude to have your back turned as the anthem is played and it would have been a lot worse for her if she was turning round as it came on. She had to look straight ahead at that moment so he had to be sharp with her.

Having to remember "stuffy rules" such as looking out at the crowds from the royal balcony and having a dignified expression as the national anthem is played is probably just one of the apparently many things that made Meghan feel pressurised as a member of the royal family...

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Palace gaffe? Or next on the Ginger Megs agenda??

Sounds deliberate to me, r508.

OMG! Camilla is a star in the video at r508. The reporters asks her if she will miss Harry and Meghan. She makes a "hmph" sound and a grimace and then says, not particularly affectionately, "of course!".

God, Camilla is fabulous in her response. She should be patron of DL.

Yes that withered homewrecking slut would be the perfect patron for r512.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

"Are the two prats gone yet? I'm not taking this off until they are".

[quote]Yes that withered homewrecking slut would be the perfect patron for [R512].

It takes one to know one, Darling. Now, where is my G & T???

Meghan is going to end up on a "Real Housewives" show.

And so will Archie. But not Harry. Not ever.

I can't even watch that full video. The baby's leg hanging down swinging awkwardly while she smiles for the cameras and walks two dogs (I haven't even seen that on Hampstead Heath, ffs) is incredibly disturbing. It's as if she's totally oblivious to how uncomfortably placed that child is.

Mental, it's getting more alarming and mental by the day. I hope to God the conspiracy loons are right and it's a doll, because if it isn't, I'm really frightened for Archie.

She's suing Backgrid, one of the best-known agencies in celebrity-land for being there when the celebrity calls and tells them to be there?!

Hasn't she got enough on her plate? Does she think Charles is going to pay for these legal fees, as well?

R507 I do feel a bit sorry for her, watching that video. She looks like she's thinking, "Fuck him, fuck them, fuck this." They both looked uncomfortable next to Andrew; a lot of mutual contempt there, I bet.

I'm sure Archie is very well taken care of by nanny and won't be harmed by one rather floppy walk. One does get the impression that she's not used to carrying him around and thus ends up awkwardly dangling him about Michael-Jackson style minus the window.

Every time I hear another comment about Camilla the homewrecker or poor Harry lost his mum, my eyes roll back into my head.

That marriage was doomed with or without Camilla. I can't think of a pair less suited to each other.

The ginger has access to every possible mental health avenue on the planet. If mommy's death is still a daily trauma after 25 years...get help.

Harry has been demoted.

"I can fucking do what I please now."

[quote]OMG! Camilla is a star in the video at [R508]. The reporters asks her if she will miss Harry and Meghan.

LOL she should have said, "Whatever 'miss' means" ....

[quote] She looks like she's thinking, "Fuck him, fuck them, fuck this."

Ha, ha. This made me think of the Sex Pistols' "Bodies."

She was a girl from Birmingham She just had an abortion She was a case of insanity Her name was Pauline she lived in a tree She was a no-one who killed her baby She sent her letters from the country She was an animal She was a bloody disgrace Body I'm not an animal Mummy I'm not an abortion Dragged on a table in a factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess It's not an animal it's an abortion Body I'm not an animal Body I'm not an abortion Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess I'm not a discharge I'm not a loss in Protein I'm not a throbbing squirm Ah! [bold]Fuck this and fuck that Fuck it all and fuck the fucking brat She don't want to baby that looks like that I don't want to baby that looks like that.[/bold] Body I'm not an animal Body I'm not an abortion Mummy! Ugh!

[quote]ends up awkwardly dangling him about Michael-Jackson style minus the window

Thanks for making me laugh out loud r520.

The most important thing to keep in mind as you read this is the following: Both sides of this family are liars!

They lied about the siblings reconciling.

They had to put up a united front to fulfill a diplomatic obligation. However, they are definitely still estranged.

They lied about the women taking part in the conversation and talking to each other.

At no point were either wives involved in the meetings, nor did they speak to each other. In fact, [the wives] have not spoken in months.

They lied about seriously considering taking away titles.

There is a distinct hierarchy here within the family and it was quickly decided that absolutely no outsider could ever be allowed to disrupt that traditional structure for any reason. It would be unfathomable and degrading to require a former senior person to genuflect to an inferior.

They lied about wanting to lead a quieter life out of the media spotlight.

He acknowledges internally that his decision actually means that the media will be even more intrusive going forward. It is a trade-off for other goals, such as monetary gain.

They lied about considering taking away his house.

They eventually want to bring him back into the fold, even if that event is several years hence. They need to play the long game to make it easy for him to return. Permanently stripping him of everything would have had the opposite effect.

So, why are both sides lying?

There was a determination that the crisis needed to be shut down quickly.

The only way the chaotic media feeding frenzy would stop is if the family pretended that all options were seriously considered; that all important matters were settled; and that all parties parted amicably.

Many compromises had to be made in the name of expediency.

We’re not so sure those compromises were good ones.

While not all of them were optimal, the necessity to quiet the chaos and return to stability was paramount.

We might be giving them too much credit, but perhaps one side knew that causing extreme chaos would result in them getting more of what they wanted?

Perhaps. However, the family is confident that their decision to play the long game is the correct one.

We’ll see if that strategy pays off in the next few years!

"lose" implies they wanted to keep the titles

did they??

Nope, they kept it all. The titles, the HRH, the house. When the thread was started it was widely reported they lost their HRH status and then that their titles would be restructured to something non-royal. It was all a word play by the press ultimately. "Lose their titles" became "they are keeping the titles, but can't use them to make money." We'll have to watch this long game strategy as they are calling it to see how it shakes out.

Charles and the Queen let them keep their titles so they'd have a way to control the Sussexes. The threat of ruining the "Sussex Royal" brand by taking away either the "Sussex" or the "Royal" is definitely still there. Also, the bit about them keeping their titles but not using them in public means that they can't actually financially exploit the titles.

I'd say this round has gone to the Queen.

R151

Only royal dukes in UK are those who are sons and grandsons of monarch and thus as birthright have and hold royal rank (HRH), with title prince. Their dukedoms given later in life are only "royal" long as current holder has such rank. All other dukes in UK are peers of the realm and never were nor are royal.

Currently there are only two royal dukedoms outside Windsor-Mountbatten family; they descend from Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and Prince George, Duke of Kent, both sons of George V.

His Royal Highness Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent (grandson of George V, son of HRH Prince George)

and

His Royal Highness Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (grandson of George V, son of Prince Henry of Gloucester)

Both dukes have male heirs, but none will be royal princes as they are neither sons nor grandsons of a monarch. Thus their dukedoms will simply be in the peerage.

Do not know what meaning you give to "royal protocol" neither late Diana nor now PH and MM have to follow; but short answer is "wrong".

By "protocol" one assumes you meant order of precedence, and yes in both cases Diana (had she lived), and duke and duchess of Sussex still must follow.

BP has issued new directives regarding order of precedence now that d and dss of Sussex are now "no longer royal" so to speak:

"Following the recent removal from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of the style of ‘Royal Highness’ and the status of Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom, even the most junior Princesses of the Blood Royal, and indeed even junior married Princesses, such as Princess Michael of Kent, will have precedence over both Harry, Duke of Sussex, and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex."

This moves PH way down the line from once being sixth order of (male) precedence down to below HM's uncles, nephews and cousins.

Markle woman is now busted down the ranks as well; even Princess Michael of Kent (aka Princess Pushy) ranks above her, so if MM didn't like craning her neck to the York princesses, they are least of her worries now

[quote]and indeed even junior married Princesses, such as Princess Michael of Kent, will have precedence over both Harry, Duke of Sussex, and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex."

Well obviously I should have precedence over the Halfrican. I'm not bowing to anyone from the colonies.

A royal dukedom remains "royal" even after the eventual heirs exhaust the HRH limitation and become His Grace. A royal dukedom remains royal because it was created for and descended through the Blood Royal. A royal dukedom will always take precedence over a non-royal dukedom and they exist in their own category. The future Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will outrank the non-royal dukedoms.

This was confirmed by King George VI when his first cousin's son, Lord Macduff inherited his grandfather's dukedom upon the death of HRH The Duke of Connaught (Prince Arthur, son of Queen Victoria) in 1942. Lord Macduff was heir to two dukedoms, Connaught and Strathearn which was a royal dukedom and his mother's dukedom of Fife which was nonroyal. He didn't live to succeed to the dukedom of Fife, but as His Grace The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, he outranked all other nonroyal dukes.

R533

That is all very well, but again there is no such thing per se as a "royal dukedom", merely man who holds said rank and title comes before "common" dukes by virtue of his being a prince of blood royal. If you examine table shown in link above showing order of precedence it is made clear "uncles, nephews and cousins" of sovereign ( last is where Kent and Gloucester fit into all this) were last in that line for male members of BRF. No one is disputing that at all. Just that now PH holds former last spot.

As topic of this thread proves, what is given by a monarch, can also be taken away. PH is or was a "royal duke" and now is much lower in precedence than before. If PH ticks off "king" Charles or "king" William either can move him down further in precedence putting dukes who are peers of realm ahead.

r533, here is some information that may clarify that issue (precedence of royal dukes vs non-royal ones):

[quote]In the United Kingdom, there is nothing intrinsic to any dukedom that makes it "royal". Rather, these peerages are called royal dukedoms because they are created for, and held by, members of the royal family who are entitled to the titular dignity of Prince and the style Royal Highness. Although the term "royal duke" therefore has no official meaning per se, the category "Duke of the Blood Royal" was acknowledged as a rank conferring special precedence at court in the unrevoked 20th clause of the Lord Chamberlain's order of 1520. This decree accorded precedence to any peer related by blood to the sovereign above all others of the same degree within the peerage. The order did not apply within Parliament, nor did it grant precedence above the Archbishop of Canterbury or other Great Officers of State such as is now enjoyed by royal dukes. But it placed junior "Dukes of the Blood Royal" above the most senior non-royal duke, junior "Earls of the Blood Royal" above the most senior non-royal earl (cf. Earldom of Wessex), etc. It did not matter how distantly related to the monarch the peers might be (presumably they ranked among each other in order of succession to the Crown). Although the 1520 order is theoretically still in effect, in fact the "Blood Royal" clause seems to have fallen into desuetude by 1917 when George V limited the style of Royal Highness to children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign. Thus peers of the blood royal who are neither sons nor grandsons of a sovereign are no longer accorded precedence above other peers.

So much invested in this...

Some of us like to talk about royalty and the UK peerage r536. Royal nerds exist, and have always been on this board. Suck it.

Suck my scepter r537.

In coming ten or perhaps twelve years odds are there will be at least one if not two major royal events (state funeral and or perhaps even a coronation).

Thus one wonders now that PH and his consort are no longer "royal" and indeed have been moved way down order of precedence, where will they fit in at such events.

Cannot imagine PH as a prince of blood royal will be so far behind in processions and or events related to his either of his grandparent's funerals, and or his father's coronation. He is still grandson of a monarch and (unless fate intervenes) will be son of another; he just cannot be put behind the Kent and Gloucester branches of family.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s private emails reportedly hacked. More shit from Prince Andrew in coming weeks probably...

This is good entertainment.

"Suck my scepter [R537]"

R538 - Is scepter a Royal Scepter?

.

R540 It's all great entertainment, making me wonder why the Megastans constantly try to shut down the discussion.

The Sussex wedding souvenirs are removed from the Royal Collection website.

Utter trash....

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle offer to pay for security — if they’re in the money

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will help pay for their own security — provided their post-Megxit money-making schemes are a success, according to a report.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have offered to reimburse taxpayers for the cost of security for their private business engagements that are not connected to royal events, sources told the Telegraph.

They will start paying as soon as their new, non-royal business plans take off — and how much they end up paying will largely depend on the cash they can bring in, the report says.

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have offered to reimburse taxpayers for the cost of security for their private business engagements that are not connected to royal events, sources told the Telegraph. "

How long did it take them to understand that sticking point... two weeks? And how well did they understand the problem people had with them having the taxpayers pay for their security? Not at all! They only want to pay for their own security if they feel like it!

Their image as greedy, spoiled, thoughtless spongers is intact!

But if they aren't doing any more royal events, what does this mean: they get to decide how the costs are divided? I mean, unless it's official business for HM, everything they do is going to be on them and hence on their dime. They don't mean to subcontract the official UK security people and apparatus rather than hire their own for their "business" engagements, do they? How could that work - government resources deployed on behalf of private people?

Greedy, spoiled, not-too-well-thought-out spongers indeed.

R546-- Meghan has started visiting charities of her own initiative in Canada. Since the new arrangement is going to kick in later this month, they will probably try to claim those as Royal engagements. They, like the RF, are trying to manipulate the situation so that they can stick the public with the bill

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

will harry gain his title bak when he wakes up and divorces the biatch ????

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

From R550 link:

"The couple first applied to the Intellectual Property Office in June 2019 for the trademark, leading to a mandatory “opposition period” for members of the public to raise objections."

So Ginger Megs have been planning their merching empire for quite some time, also making a nonsense of the claim that Megs had any interest in the BRF or Britain.

Is Sussex Royal anything like Royal Doulton?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Harry and Meghan have been spotted in Toronto. LOL.

She looks like Alanis Morrisette there.

Harry's maple leaf scarf looks like it's being held in place with double-sided fabric tape.

After all, who doesn't tape down their statement scarf when they're going for a casual stroll, totally not expecting to be photographed?

[quote]Harry and Meghan have been spotted in Toronto. LOL.

Were they spotted in the airport boarding a flight to LA?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Oh dear.

[quote]Do the two figures look "real" to you?

To be fair, he's British and they all have that waxy look about them.

Ahhh...yes, Meghan's "charity work" that began in 2014 when she hired Kruger Cowne to raise her humanitarian profile and which consisted of a handful of one time appearences and photo ops. She brought her own photographer on that trip FFS. She promptly dropped KC immediately upon meeting Harry and banned WV from using her image when they enquired.

Ahhh...yes, Meghan's "charity work" that began in 2014 when she hired Kruger Cowne to raise her humanitarian profile and which consisted of a handful of one time appearences and photo ops. She brought her own photographer on that trip FFS. She promptly dropped KC immediately upon meeting Harry and banned WV from using her image when they enquired.

I have zero empathy for her crocodile tears on that balcony.

She was probably whining about something and asking dumb questions she should already know the answer to, and Harry snapped at her to turn around.

She's shown time and time again she refuses to learn anything....about anything! If it's not to her liking or "hard" she fumbles and stubbornly insists it needs to be done "her" way.

I bet someone has hopefully told her she looks idiotic when she holds the baby, yet she keeps on holding the child like its a sack of potatoes. A normal person who is not a raging narcissist would see those photos and think, "Shit! That DOES look awful! I need to learn how to properly hold my child!"

Yet, she doesn't.

[quote]I bet someone has hopefully told her she looks idiotic when she holds the baby, yet she keeps on holding the child like its a sack of potatoes.

Which I don't understand because all the women that I've ever known grew up holding dolls. And many that I've talked to always wanted to hold a baby when they were teenagers, hold their sibling, hold the neighbor's baby. What was going on in her life that she never learned how to hold a baby?

Wuhan mayor says he expects another 1,000 coronavirus cases in the city as Beijing warns virus is MORE contagious

More than 2,000 people have now been infected worldwide and 56 have been killed in China, sparking President Xi Jinping to yesterday issue an unprecedented warning of a 'grave situation'.

I read that the Queen offered the freedom to live without titles BEFORE the wedding (so she could continue to act etc) but this whore wanted to become a working member of the royal family.

Yeah, well, quietly going to live without titles wouldn't have suited either one of them.

Meghan got much more publicity about trying to be a princess and having a baby and then exiting dramatically, while Harry can use the drama and publicity to stick it to his father and brother, and hold them up for funds. What a dreadful spoiled adult baby he turned out to be.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Exactly. What's the point of charity work if you can't be globally admired and adored?

[quote]Exactly. What's the point of charity work if you can't be globally admired and adored?

Which is kind of stupid because she could have been globally admired and adored as part of the British Royal Family. She married the popular prince. Yeah, she might have had to curtsy to Kate, another commoner, but think of all the attention she would have been able to generate as the first mixed race royal.

She's going to go on "Ellen?" Now THAT should be a laff riot. And what will she talk about? How happy she is, now that she has the freedom to accept lucrative offers from networks and enjoy the largesse of billionaires? Boy, THAT is going to make a lot of people like her.

Yeah, not sure how Me Me Markle is going to play the "I had no idea what I was getting into" card while wanting to make money off of being married to a prince but not having to do any of the work it requires.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I don't know why people say he was a terrible dad, he was at every play and filmed all her performances...sounds pretty involved to me.

......

R575 Its to redirect blame from Doria's piss poor parenting and long significant absence from Meghan's life during her formative years.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Caitlyn is taking too much plastic surgery advice from her former wife and step-daughters.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I'm curious about the sudden meeting over Andrew. I wonder if it has anything to do with all the articles calling for a swap of him for that U.S. Diplomats wife who they are trying to extradite for killing that young man.

Harry is pathetic and his obssession with the press and controlling it is ridiculous.

Prince Harry loses battle with press over wildlife article

The Duke of Sussex has lost a complaint against The Mail on Sunday, the newspaper the duchess is suing separately over an alleged breach of privacy.

The duke complained that an article about his pictures of African wildlife was inaccurate.

However, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) ruled that the article was not “significantly misleading” or inaccurate.

The article, published on April 28 last year, was about photographs published on the couple’s Instagram account to highlight Earth Day. Under the headline “Drugged and tethered . . . what Harry didn’t tell you about those awe-inspiring wildlife photos”, the article said that the duke’s pictures of a rhino, elephant and lion “don’t quite tell the whole story”.

It went on: “Anyone glancing at them quickly could be left with the impression that capturing images of these mighty creatures at such close quarters would have required a thrilling — possibly life-endangering — pursuit across the bush.”

Instead, it said, all three had been stunned by a tranquilliser. The elephant had also been tethered, but because of the way the picture was edited, the Instagram picture did not reveal the rope around its hind legs.

The duke complained to Ipso that the article was inaccurate because it reported that he had intentionally misled the public to give the impression that he was a superior wildlife photographer who had captured the images in dangerous circumstances.

Prince Harry’s Instagram post cropped out the rear legs Prince Harry’s Instagram post cropped out the rear legs Instead, the duke said, the pictures were meant to raise awareness, and the caption made clear the animals were being relocated as part of conservation efforts. Because of that, it was not necessary to spell out that they had been sedated or tethered, as this would be understood by readers.

The full uncropped photograph had been published on the royal family website in 2016, Harry added.

He also argued that the image of the elephant had been cropped owing to the formatting requirements of Instagram, and the only alternative would have been to edit out the handler.

The newspaper argued that Harry had posted the pictures on his Instagram account without explaining the circumstances. It also disputed his insistence that it was necessary to crop the picture, saying that his preference for a border around the picture was a presentational choice.

Ipso said that “it was not clear from the images themselves that the animals had been tranquillised and tethered”.

It said that the photograph could have been edited differently and that the duke accepted that it could have been uploaded in a different format that would have made editing the picture unnecessary.

Ipso concluded that it “did not consider that it was significantly misleading to report that the photographs posted on the complainant’s Instagram account did not quite tell the full story and that the complainant had not explained the circumstances in which the photographs had been taken.”

It also said that it had not been necessary for The Mail on Sunday to contact the duke’s representatives for a comment, although the newspaper had included Harry’s denial that he had deliberately edited out the tether on the image of the elephant.

The duchess is suing The Mail on Sunday claiming it misused private information by publishing details of a letter to her father. The newspaper cited “huge and legitimate” public interest.

The duchess is going to lose that battle, too.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Sophie Wessex attends a ladies event at the London Stock Exchange.

The headline is hilarious and creepy at the same time.

I don't recognize this necklace on Camilla. Anyone know the history of it?

Some Middle Eastern royal give it to her when she and Charles became "official." Whether or not she blew him for it is as yet undetermined.

[quote]They are LA bound like most of us suspected.

Prayers Answered, r585.

I'm thinking maybe Malibu or Laguna, CA for these three. Maybe they'll do fine CA, especially in secluded, upscale surroundings. I would then say that they'll become happily anonymous, as the foreign pauper has rescued the prince, a modern twist on the old theme. You never know.

Oh, my sides!!!!

Meghan....living a quiet anonymous lifestyle....

Oh my stars, that is hilarious!

Harry will get sick to death of LA in a year or two, he'll get sick of the heat and traffic and paparazzi that always know where he is, and shallow society bastards that aren't like his shallow society bastard pals back home.

And then, cue the drunken escapades!

The jealousy, envy and anger towards his elder brother William was apparent in Harry for a long time.

Why didn't Meghan follow her own advice?

An interesting opinion on the bad timing of Megxit.

I don't think either one is "happy" right now.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Why do three people need 15 bodyguards?

The Saga of Meghan's Nose...Before and After.