The news that the Sussexes have disposed of their UK staff - including a few longtime employees who worked with Harry before he met Meghan - has raised questions about whether they will ever again spend significant time in Britain, at least as a couple.
It was also raised questions about their commitment to "kindness", since many of their new hires had given up other jobs to sign on with the Sussexes, and the staff have been busy defending Harry and Meghan to the media as recently as this week, according to the Daily Mail.
"Meghan up to her old tricks again - getting rid of people no longer of any use to her," Piers Morgan wrote on Twitter. "I've met some ruthless operators in my time but she's something else."
(Watkins produced some truly awful social media, although it's hard to know how much of it was his work and how much of it can be traced to the Duchess' "input". Anyway, good luck on that job hunt.)
However, they are still working to arrange the Sussexes' final appearances in Britain in March, when Harry is scheduled to attend the Mountbatten Festival of Music at the Royal Albert Hall (His last engagement as Captain-General of the Royal Marines - will he wear his uniform for the last time?) and a joint appearance at the Commonwealth Day service on March 9.
Were the Sussexes told that, as ex-Royals, they would be required to pay for their own staff in London, including the expensively-hired Sarah Latham?
The Sussexes seem short on dough, whatever they may be up to with JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, although I have a hard time believing the figures that have been thrown around about possible "deals" with those banks.
The only thing the Sussexes really have to offer those banks are their contacts, and over the past three years they've cut off or annoyed many of the people who might have been useful to the bankers.
What do you think of the Sussexes' staff moves?
It was also raised questions about their commitment to "kindness", since many of their new hires had given up other jobs to sign on with the Sussexes, and the staff have been busy defending Harry and Meghan to the media as recently as this week, according to the Daily Mail.
"Meghan up to her old tricks again - getting rid of people no longer of any use to her," Piers Morgan wrote on Twitter. "I've met some ruthless operators in my time but she's something else."
Redundancy packages
Most of the staff are currently negotiating redundancy packages, including new hires like David Watkins, the social media manager the Sussexes hired away from Burberry.(Watkins produced some truly awful social media, although it's hard to know how much of it was his work and how much of it can be traced to the Duchess' "input". Anyway, good luck on that job hunt.)
However, they are still working to arrange the Sussexes' final appearances in Britain in March, when Harry is scheduled to attend the Mountbatten Festival of Music at the Royal Albert Hall (His last engagement as Captain-General of the Royal Marines - will he wear his uniform for the last time?) and a joint appearance at the Commonwealth Day service on March 9.
All about money?
It's hard not to wonder if the sudden layoffs - and the Sussexes' apparent retreat from having a presence in the UK as well as North America - have something to do with finance.Were the Sussexes told that, as ex-Royals, they would be required to pay for their own staff in London, including the expensively-hired Sarah Latham?
The Sussexes seem short on dough, whatever they may be up to with JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, although I have a hard time believing the figures that have been thrown around about possible "deals" with those banks.
The only thing the Sussexes really have to offer those banks are their contacts, and over the past three years they've cut off or annoyed many of the people who might have been useful to the bankers.
What do you think of the Sussexes' staff moves?
Comments
Megs is smiling in the Daily Mail photos of the Harkles getting off a plane, but her disheveled clothing make her look like a rape victim. What were she & Harry up to in the last few minutes of their flight, for heaven's sake? Her blouse is pulled open, the zipper of her trousers is open & shows the bottom part of her blouse, her hair is a mess. I realize she isn't traveling with an entourage of royal aides any more, but even most of us schlubs like to have our clothes in place when disembarking from whatever we're traveling on.
The photos were taken by Chris Brewer & Derek Shook for BackGrid, a celebrity paparazzi company. Did Megs arrange for them to be there? Surely she would have made sure she looked better if she did. Derek Shook was in a story about photographers staking out the Harkles in Saanich. Will the Harkles threaten to sue once more? Did Megs call the paps so that she could claim her privacy is being invaded? Who knows?
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/canadians-confront-paparazzi-as-harry-and-meghan-reunite-on-vancouve
We do know that Megs loves to have her picture taken. Her father trained her in how to give the camera her most photogenic angles. I wonder if there is any tension in the Harkle relationship because of her love of publicity & her husband's alleged dislike of it.
I came across this Anon comment re. the Vogue video:
'The video with party hats was directed at the DOC and her family's business. Making a mockery of it.'
How many times does Meghan do something to get headlines on the same day that Kate especially has an important engagement? The agency that took those photos (and there are dozens of them) are the ones that Meghan always uses. How did they know they would be on that flight? Were they camped out at the airport checking every flight that landed? Or were they tipped off by the photos taken on the plane (strange that none were taken on all the other flights they must have taken on their various jaunts in the past couple of weeks)?
Oh, what was Kate doing? The first ever podcast in which she spoke honestly and openly about her personal experiences of pregnancy, childbirth and parenting.
"They have nothing to give." By leaving the royal family, H&M gave up what made them special. "
Harry gave up the connection to ....his family and all that it implies. Harry is in his mid 30s - without the family connection, he has nothing. He is like every post high school person who entered the military and stayed for 10 years, leaving the service with no marketable specialty. He was a soldier who gave service. this is commendable, however it does not put food on the table.
Meghan is a minor actress who has tried to be an influencer. What made her special was being a working royal who also happens to be a woman of color, an American, with a different fashion sense than the rest of the inner royal family. She bolted, claiming all sorts of excuses after 18 months. She has no cachet without the royal family's tacit approval to her actions.
The only reason for interest in them is because of their notoriety. Once the public sees them for who they really are (interviews et al), their 15 minutes of fame is over.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/02/15/20/24784110-8007997-image-a-86_1581796938085.jpg
Her laptop looks 17.3", thus the alleged desktop replacement size, anyways all new laptops are very easy to extend to an external monitor via HDMI. For use at home etc. It helps if the laptop is full hd resolution meaning 1920 by 1080 (also known as Full HD or FHD) because this is the resolution of most monitors.
No other reason for her to look like such a hot mess. And if the paps were truly coincidental (which I do not believe) and this is her natural style, she had best give up all hope of influencing anyone.
Anyway. Magatha Mistie topped it off with a real winner but I couldn’t comment back because I was so drunk......I mean......so SLEEPY!
Magatha...if you are here can you repost your comment.....it was hilarious! GREAT BALLS OF FIRE.............. the OT police are going to come after me so I gotta run!
I read an old extract from the Tig last week that she never liked baking because it didn't allow her to improvise (being an exact science if you want best results). She loved to just throw stuff in and go with the flow. This may seem trivial, but it's still a pointer to personality. So many red flags. The last place she should have been is in the royal family. This is why Kate, a disciplined, organised woman, is such a success.
The more I think of it, the more I admire Kate, and I don't think the luxury of her life means she has an easier time than other mothers. She just has different burdens. Getting ready as perfectly as she does, for every event, must be like preparing for a big wedding but worse. No marks, creases or scuffs. Even the undersides of her shoes could end up in the press if dirty. Imagine getting ready like that and being formal for hours, often some distance from home, and then early next morning you're up for the school run through heavy London traffic. She seems to do the school run at all costs, when she can. I'm exhausted after formal events. I hate grand weddings. I wouldn't like regular events like that AND three young children AND the world's media looking at me AND two wasters massively stressing my husband. I don't care how many household staff she has. I wouldn't change places with her for a single day.
I'm so relieved she seems to be able to take all this in her stride and not get tired of maintaining such high standards, year after year. Her children are visibly thriving. She knows how to share them with us while at the same time preserving their privacy. She understands the deal that exists with the public. She doesn't make anyone feel small. Yes she had a slow start, but after Meghan that no longer seems a bad thing.
Meghan coming up with yet another feeble distraction on such an important day for Kate is yet another own goal. And she couldn't look more of a mess. As for Harry, he looks like that old Harry Enfield character - the moody teenager. UK Nutties may remember that. The shuffling slovenliness, the baseball cap, the surliness. Honestly, in his 30s it's pathetic.
@Unknown, the UK expat long time lurker:
Thanks for posting!
You bring up an interesting question--if you could leave a situation that makes you unhappy, would you?
@Mischief Girl and Unknown: Common reasons why people do not leave situations/relationships/marriages that make them unhappy:
1-Fear of the unknown. They know inside their job, relationship, or marriage is crap, but they worry they could end up even worse off than their current situation.
2-In a relationship with a narc, everything in public, including around family, friends, business associates, and in Meghan and Harry’s case, the media and general public, is often nothing less than the narc’s carefully-contrived facade of sunshine, roses, and a lovely perfect life, which the partner/victim usually willingly participates in.
It’s partly because they fear the explosive anger and abuse they will experience later in private if they don’t perform in public like a trained seal.
It is often also because it’s difficult to admit to yourself, even though you know deep down in you gut level somewhere, that you have made a MASSIVE mistake. Let’s face it, nobody wants to admit they’ve been scammed, especially in Harry’s case, by a first-rate grifter on the world stage no less.
Who wants to admit all that, plus all the wasted years of your life, the innocent children who have been brought into the mess who are stuck for life with a fiend for a parent, plus all the money spent, and the knowledge that a divorce will be nothing short of having a nuclear bomb detonated in your front yard. Not attractive to many people.
Also, while it’s often difficult to have a silent discussion with yourself to admit you truly f—-d up, most of us know it is doubly harder to admit to friends, family, and any others who expressed reservations or outright warnings about your budding relationship while you were under the spell of a new love, powered by endorphin-fed sky high emotions?
William’s advice to Harry to slow down was reportedly met with anger, as was the reaction to longtime friends like Tom Inskip, who reportedly told him not to marry her. Plus after the engagement interview, comments opposing the marriage were already gaining steam in the media and forums such as this. It is looking like all these people have been right up to this point.
No one who reacts negatively to people who were what Harry viewed as threats to burst his bubble of “love” wants to eat crow and admit to everyone that they made a terrible choice despite cautions from people who truly love or care about them on different levels.
So you fritter years or even decades of your life, hanging on to a deformed dream.
@HappyDays, regarding the Blind Gossip piece...When those numbers were being floated out there, I thought to myself, "Jeez, I'll bet that's how much she wants for leaving Harry, not what 'sources' say she can make."
Well, there was a lot more swearing, but I thought that paraphrasing would be welcomed, here.
I've sworn on here a few times in the past, but I've decided not to disrespect Nutty and everybody else here that way anymore.
👼🏻😇👼🏻😇👼🏻
Just for you, Miss Scarlett O’hara quote:
“If I have to lie, steal, cheat, or kill, as God is my witness I’ll never be hungry again”
Could have been written for our Megs.
I was just wondering to myself last night where Tom Bradby's been since the start of the megxit fiasco. Isn't he the one that was out there, right in the beginning, saying how M&H could do a tell all if they don't get what they want? He's sure been quiet since that week, hasn't he?
My theory at this point is that Jessica is not human. She's constructed out of vinyl. She looks like a knock-off Barbie doll to me.
Harry looks OK,actually he looks like he put on some (needed) weight. Also, most men dress much like Harry when not working so not out of the ordinary.
Humor Me said.... She bolted, claiming all sorts of excuses after 18 months. She has no cachet without the royal family's tacit approval to her actions.
@Humor Me: Since she became “famous,” at least in her mind, it’s beginning to look like the expiration date on Meghan is about two years. She spent several years with Trevor as an anonymous bit player and got the Suits gig very close to the time she married him in September 2011. She filed for divorce in about July 2013, just short of two years before dumping him via the now infamous mailing-her-rings-back technique.
She was with Cory the chef for about two years when, according to whatever timeline you believe, she dumped him after her two-year project to stalk Harry finally came to fruition.
And now, as she nears the two-year mark with Harry and the RF, she’s bugging out again. She’s out of the RF (but wants to keep the Duchess title like a party favor goodie bag), and, if the recent Blind Gossip and houseplant items contain any elements of accuracy, it looks like she’s now getting ready for her life after Harry. (But she will still demand to keep the duchess title after a divorce.)
Pretty soon, people will be able to set their watches by when Meghan bails out of her relationships.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8008873/PATRICK-JEPHSON-future-Queen-Catherine-relief-spectacle-Sussexes.html
"The future Queen Catherine offers us a cheerful alternative to the cringeworthy spectacle of her brother-in-law and sister-in-law debasing their Royal status in North America."
"My respect is deepened by Catherine's repeatedly stated belief that good early years provision helps build national unity. What better message could a future Queen offer mothers and fathers today? The future of the Monarchy is clearly very safe in Middleton hands. Lucky Windsors. Lucky us."
In the past, I wanted the Harkles to simply go away. So that none of us had to endure their idiocy any longer. But I'm changing my tune. The Harkles' sordid presence on the stage only helps to heighten the aura of the Cambridges. As Jephson says, "lucky us" indeed.
In a different scenario, the world could have been stuck with a Sussex monarchy. Imagine how disturbing and demoralizing such an outcome could have been? Instead, we get to see the monarchs-to-be shining in their roles and providing everyone a road map of how it ought to be done, while their clueless siblings flounder.
@Raspberry Ruffle @Trudy Blue When I first read about “Tiara-gate,” I heard about it being the Greville tiara as well. The story then morphed into Meg wanting the Vladimir tiara and a weak excuse about it having suspect Russian origins. I always thought it being the Greville tiara made more sense especially when the tiara Meg used resembled it more.
unreliable like The Sun is for facts. I don’t read either newspapers. 😳
It’s just another photo OPS settled after it was announced they fired 15 people and after they had a very negative press coverage this week while Kate has been in the headlined for 2 days being praised (down-to-earth mum and grateful granddaughter).
So their PR agency may have suggested them to push hard their steady narrative: they are humble and happy people. Guess what? I don’t buy it!
Regarding Archie, he must be with his nanny as usual. We have not seen Prince Louis since a while so I don’t criticize the fact we’ll see Archie twice a year BUT it's seem they travel so many times abroad without their baby. I couldn’t do that.
Very good 9/10 -incisive same as all your posts. I just want to acknowledge you ...because after all are we not all looking for - wanting - craving acknowledgement/ Does acknowledgment equal love?
You want really cold, stupid and dumb? Megsy is exceeded by the CPS that drove Caroline Flack to her self death/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8007677/Caroline-Flack-dead.html
THERE is an interesting video which i
https://www.instagram.com/tv/B8keZuCHItX/?igshid=axe0pzgpzwt5
Go Fake Yourself Meghan on Instagram: “How does Prince William feel about Harry's marriage? Watch for the biggest clue that was never reported
We made an oath to protect and serve Queen Elizabeth II, and her heirs and successors.
The fact that one of her direct heirs has decided he is too good for his country speaks volumes to us. It is not only the Royal Marines who are angry. Our US brothers and sisters in arms are welcome to the idiot. He'll let you down, too.
Well said, I’m ex WRAC, Harry has betrayed us all.
I knew I liked you! X
Well to quote Skippy "Anything and everything" is possible (although I know she believes Harry is a valued member of the BRF and all). It is just so unbelievable that this grifter could get into the royal family and cause such horrendous discord and bring shame on the Crown. But Harry is completely complicit. I am thinking the Queen was afraid to say no to Harry. My tinfoil hat theory was that Meg told Hapless she was pregnant at the Invictus games then she conveniently had a miscarriage. But she got her hooks in and stupid lusting Harry fell for Lucifer's creation,AKA Meghan Markle and he succumbed to her vision of being global stars. Isn't that what the Devil tempted Jesus with, the promise of all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would fall down and worship him. I know it sounds sinister but I think it is possible Meghan sold her soul to the devil for fame. riches and glory. And Harry was riding on her coattails (much like Adam fell because of Eve's temptation having "knowledge' from the Treenby eating the apple. I think they will get their comeuppance because that is what the Devil does...promise you what you crave and then bring you to a disastrous end, I am sorry if this religious opinion offends some but I have to say it as I see it. Even Justin Welby has aided in this awful travesty, which is scary because he is such a high ranking clergy and so respected and high profile. What is disturbing is that the Queen being head of the COE plays a pivotal role in this nefarious scheme. May we pray for the restoration of good over evil and save the BRF from infamy.
As others have noted, she is putting herself in the way of a number of very wealthy and well connected men. How long will it take her to pry one away from his current partner and start a personal relationship with her? Because that’s how long her current relationship will last. It may take a few more years, or it may be this summer. Or she’ll stay with her current husband forever if no better option presents itself.
"After witnessing the disastrous marriages of Charles, Andrew, and her daughter Princess Anne, the Queen concluded that their courtships had been too short. Her Majesty now firmly insisted that members of the Royal Family should date someone for a full five years before settling on a mate. “After all,” she told Prince Philip, “look at Charles and Camilla".
"Having dated William steadily since their first year in college, Kate was nearly four-fifths of the way home. She had not only coped with the vagaries of royal life—the stringent security measures, the constant scrutiny—but she had done so with grace and charm. Just as important to the Queen, Kate had shown a degree of loyalty and discretion that was markedly absent in her daughters-in-law Diana and Fergie. Kate had always gone out of her way to make William’s life easier— even when it meant staying in the shadows while other young women, including ex-girlfriends, grabbed the limelight. In short, Kate was giving the Queen every reason to be believe she truly loved him."
If true the Queen had - for a time - a five year rule (and Andersen's a reputable writer I believe), then if she had stuck to that we can categorically say Meghan would have remained in deserved obscurity and Harry would probably still be unmarried. None of this would have happened.
I included the bit about what Kate had shown by her own behaviour at that time, as her podcast this week is another careful step in the right direction for her.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10971405/meghan-and-harry-by-all-means-demean-yourselves-but-dont-demean-our-queen/
Unfortunately, the writer (or copy editor) believes that readers are incapable of comprehending a paragraph that is longer than a sentence (takes a huge risk with a few compound sentences) so the whole piece is disjointed and difficult to read.
However, the essence of the piece is that neither Harry nor Meghan have any credentials, expertise nor talents to earn a place among the elite. They only have the royal connection, so of course they are going to use it.
I am unfamiliar with the Fox media outlet so don't know how reliable it is, but the following article seems reasonable to me:
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-running-the-show-staff-firing-royal-expert-claims.amp
A couple of things challenge my thinking (and reasonably so):
1. Harry and Meghan will only attend royal events at the Queen's invitation. (This contradicts my own surmise that their continuing roles in the Commonwealth Trust gave them an automatic invitation to the Commonwealth ceremony. Perhaps they have been asked to step down from those roles and it just not been announced yet.)
2. Some staff did want to follow the Sussexes to Canada (or wherever they stay in their new gypsy life), but it is because of their admiration for and devotion to Harry. (I never considered that some people would put up with a lot from Meghan because they find Harry inspiring and great to work with.)
What are the bets that he will be close to tears?
I doubt that the military will boo him (too disciplined), but if Meghan shows up with him, the atmosphere in that venue will go down in history. How will Harry react to that? Sulk, frown, glower, let Meghan entwine herself around him and look up at him adoringly?
I think Camilla, with her thoughtful & sensitive support for victims of domestic abuse, & Kate, with her equally sensitive & honest comments on her role as a mother, are the true 'modernizers' of the monarchy. They both have managed to make themselves seem empathetic & relatable.
I also admire Camilla's refusal to embrace plastic surgery or any other attempt at hiding her age. She apparently utilizes wigs at times, but that's sensible for someone who is often photographed in hats & tiaras. Her wigs are always immaculate looking in any case.
“ ‘Their article also highlighted her “duffle bag… from Prada’s Re-Nylon line, which uses Econyl, a material that can allegedly be recycled indefinitely… made from mixing ocean waste and textile waste into fabric.’ However, at a reported cost of $125 for her recycled bottle shoes and a staggering $1,790 for her ocean waste bag, Meghan’s outfit may not be particularly “sustainable” for families with less extravagant budgets.“
Eco-Warriors Harry and Meghan Fly to Trump’s America with ‘Sustainable’ $1,790 Prada Bags http://bit.ly/320nRW7 via @BreitbartNews
🐛
Do they simply not comprehend they have nothing of value to offer now? That "The Prince Formerly Known As Harry" has no worth outside being a member of the British Royal Family? Mind boggling.
His big smile when he got off the plane could have just been relief to be nearly 'home' or he feels good about big deals that are coming together.
She got off that plane clutching a laptop and phone so I suspect she is always online hustling.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-2915#post-54867995
Legally I assume that two witnesses are required to sign the marriage registry. However, the BRF always has at least 6 people signing (and it used to be a lot more).
It is very odd that only two people went into that registry with them - the legal minimum.
Perhaps because Meghan only had one person there from her family, Harry chose only one person. I don't understand why best friends Jessica, et al could not perform the function (witnesses at a royal wedding do not have to be family) unless Meghan did not want to give them that 'honour' at a royal wedding.
She does think she has 'magical boobs' doesn't she?!
https://twitter.com/therealjesal/status/1228745820314521603
A hooker on the rampage.
I have just done some research and witnesses must be over the age 18 (unless special permission is given) and must witness the ceremony. There is no requirement that they must be Church of England (and yes, a minimum of two is required).
There were a whole lot of requirements that required the intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Meghan being an American citizen and a divorcee and St Georges not being their parish), but anyone over the age of 18 in that church that day could have acted as witness (yes, even Jessica).
"Deal or No Deal?"
I agree. Yet another reminder of the parallels with Edward VIII, who took Wallis Simpson down with him, most unwillingly. For years he had shown inappropriate behaviour and general slacking off. As King he took weeks to work through red boxes that needed fast turnarounds (done conscientiously by the present Queen for decades) and returned important papers stained by cocktail glasses. He never wanted to do his duty. Yes he loved Wallis and was obsessed by her, but she was also a convenient life raft he seized with (I think) great relief, dressed up as grief and sacrifice. I never expected to see a Windsor like that in my own lifetime.
" Even Justin Welby has aided in this awful travesty, which is scary because he is such a high ranking clergy and so respected and high profile. What is disturbing is that the Queen being head of the COE plays a pivotal role in this nefarious scheme."
Although I have respect for the Queen she knew Harry and Megs was unhappy for a year (at least) and plotting accordingly. She is also complicit in that the staff was let go suddenly. Why didn't she try to soften the blow to the staff who were serving her Grandson so well. It's about time I think the Queen and Charles takes some responsibility for this mess too. Why did Charles feed the monster which would be Meghan (buying her 1 million in clothes). Was he buying her happiness (he didn't even do that for Diana, his wife did he?). The Queen gives them a tour down under immediately after marriage, did she do that for William and Kate? I'm beginning to think she was trying to buy their happiness or maybe 'silence'? I am beginning not to feel so sorry for the Queen and Charles. Going back to Caharles and Diana, didn't the Queen know her son was involved with Camilla for years creating a heartbreaking situation for Diana and did not order him to be faithful (I know some here will throw tomatoes at me because oh my gosh, Diana became unfaithful too). The Queen overlooked her favorite son's behavior with Epstein's underage women. She tolerated harry and Meghan's awful behavior of being sloppy, disrespectful and impudent actions ending in a mess of a departure causing 15 people to suddenly lose their jobs and cause the UK public to have their taxes pay for security for two turncoats. How much worse can it get? I predict this will go on and on, with the UK public having to pay month after month for the HAMS while they make their millions. The UK public are being cuckold' taxpayers...paying for royalty who are disloyal and fornicating the public trust and goodwill.
I still can't get my head around Meghan. She knows her messy, untidy, slovenly dress drives folk crazy, so she's done it even more in this photo. Same with her hair, which has had acres of critical readers' comments already. Same with her unwarranted, unneccessary no-fun-for-us extravagance. She just keeps ramping up everything that is most inflammatory. What gives? Is it a form of narcissistic rage?
She just keeps ramping up everything that is most inflammatory. What gives? Is it a form of narcissistic rage?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Narcissistic rage...yes, I call it a big FU to the British, or all the public who cares about the BRF. I call it the 'Cuckold Taxpayer'...people who are paying for the Duo to financially screw the public..make the public pay for their royal unfaithfulness. Why doesn't the British public protest? They are now being made fools of by the HAMS? I bet Meghan is so embolden by them getting away with saying the BRF is toxic and taking big money she is laughing at the Brits every single day. I am beginning to wonder if these are the same people who fought so hard in World War II. They are being defeated by a two bit grifter and her 'rum dum' royal puppet. I know the minute the HAMS hit the shore of the US I will sequel like a stuck pig to my congressman not to let one cent be spent on their security.
Why aren't you Brits and Canadians (now that Trudeau says Canada is picking up a portion of the security costs) formally objecting to these freeloaders? The HAMS have the money to pay for their security. Can anyone give me some insight on this. People complain but writing on a blog is not enough.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/02/blind-item-2_16.html
Getting a very desperate vibe from Team Harkle these days. Trying to smear Kate (and using projection to do so) isn't likely to be a winning strategy.
Walls closing in faster than I thought for the Harkles. I knew things weren't going well, but stooping to this level of madness would seem to signify real discord for the Harkles.
I agree. It's laughable DC used a surrogate.
I wish the Harkles would go live a quiet life somewhere else.
I hope we aren't paying for their detail in the states. God knows we have enough losers to pay for here.
As a brit, the Harkles aren't that important at the moment and the relief that they have gone is palpable. We've just had Brexit and that will roll on for another year, we're really struggling with the weather and surprisingly the suicide of Caroline Flack - Harry's ex - has had a huge impact here. Our tax to fund the Royals cost us just over £1 a year. The anger is building though because the Harkles really disrespected the Queen. As a military man , Harry swore an oath to the Queen which he has thrown away. I honestly don't believe that they will ever return to the UK because they know that they will face public anger never been seen before. Personally I think all this pussyfooting around is about Archie. Why did they not bring him back in January? I think they know that he will be taken away if indeed he exists. The BRF are still putting it out that the Harkles are still part of the family so that when things go nuclear, it will be all down to the Harkles being unreasonable, dishonest and greedy.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/02/blind-item-2_16.html
Kate is not a foreign-born royal.
It doesn't sound like Meghan either because she is mostly so secretive about Archie and the blind talks about a first birth.
There are plenty 'foreign-born' royals on the continent that have more than one child.
CDaN originates in the US so Kate would be considered a foreign-born royal ...
She also spoke about the birth of George recently in that podcast.
just sayin' ...
As @Annie said, Kate just spoke about George in a podcast. Not hard to put 2 and 2 together here.
@PortCityGirl
Yeah. People here in the USA won't go for paying the fees of royals. Particularly failed royals, at that.
I'm still stunned at the Enty blind that appears to be about Kate and would clearly be coming from Team Harkle if about Kate.
How twisted do you have to be to go after the queen-in-waiting when you got your Megxit and are no longer even on the same continent? Not sure who the Harkles think is going to be receptive to this, but they're in for a rude awakening.
Only Meg's sugars hate Kate. No one else does. Meg could never be Kate. Meg and Team Meg should stay away from that comparison as much as they can, including an implicit comparison when Team Meg puts out spin trying to hurt Kate.
Attacking Kate may have worked a year ago, when Meg was supposedly "shackled in grief" to the royal family. You're free now, sister. You should be thinking about what you're doing, not what the latest family you left behind is doing. Big mistake here.
I personally love to see this as it's another brick in the wall of the Harkles' demise. I always felt that Meg was a bit...different...but this attack on Kate seems deranged. This is the stuff of self destruction (on the part of Meg). I guess the pressure is really getting to her.
Think about how happy Kate (and the other royals) must be to be free of this craziness? Talk about sleeping with the enemy.
@Ava c.
As a brit, the Harkles aren't that important at the moment and the relief that they have gone is palpable. We've just had Brexit and that will roll on for another year, we're really struggling with the weather and surprisingly the suicide of Caroline Flack - Harry's ex - has had a huge impact here. Our tax to fund the Royals cost us just over £1 a year."
Wow oh Wow....I don't know why the Brits are on this blog and many others complaining about the HAMs day in and day out 24/7 and they are only paying one Lb.year. Guess that makes sense! Yeppers....just 1 lb a year and countless hours of talk about the Harkles. I see it now...it gives entertainment value to gossip and denigrate them because they are only costing the public a mere l lb a year! Wow oh wow! Small price to pay for national embarassment, disrespect of the Queen, the Monarchy and the public who has funded a 32 million dollar wedding etc... I see it makes sense because Ms. Flack's suicide is so much more important. I am thinking now the UK public are getting what they want from these two.
Wow, oh wow, I don't have any sympathy anymore. Maybe Meghan and Harry are right. The UK public really don't care.
That doesn’t make any sense, well to me anyhow. It’s like me saying a foreign born President. They are foreign to me because I’m British, but to the country they represent they aren’t. Catherine is British, and representing the British royal family. 🥴
I too think that the RF is relieved to have them gone. I often wonder when William found out his brother betrayed him and how. I believe he knew early on about Harry's plans.
Looks like MM's new bff HRC may be on the Dem ticket now. I wonder if the HAMS will campaign for her.
""Looks like MM's new bff HRC may be on the Dem ticket now. I wonder if the HAMS will campaign for her.""
If that is true, then HRC may get 'Markled' and can forget about getting elected!
We welcomed Meghan with open arms but she really bit the hand that fed her. We even ignored the red flags of the engagement interview because we thought that Harry was finally going to be happy and get his wish of a family. I chose not to listen to any gossip or speculation, preferring to see things with my own eyes. I think the whole baby debacle was outrageous - all we wanted to do was share in their joy. History shows that the BRF are there to serve the country, not themselves. Would it have really hurt them. The killer blow came with her behaviour at Wimbledon followed by the Lion King premiere. In reality, the BRF take in a lot of money through the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. If you die intestate, the Duchy of Lancaster takes the lot.So, in reality, the British people give a lot more than the £1. We are Sussex fatigued, it's been relentless and now they've gone we can concentrate on the real Royals.
The Harkles decided to desert their family and their country. So why should they still be taking money from the UK if it really is that toxic? The Rpos are employed by the police. And we can certainly do with the extra bodies here.
By your comments, I don't know if you have deliberately misunderstood. This attitude has only been since they left. They didn't even have the courtesy to discuss it before announcing their departure but it seemed that they gave a list of demands and basically were told to get lost. As Harry said it wasn't what he wanted but he made the choice. In a nutshell , they completely disrespected our Queen so they are now persona non gratis.
Maybe I did misunderstand. I thought you were saying since the HAMS were only costing a mere 1 lb a day to each Brit they weren't of any consequence. I, if I was a Brit would abhor them if they didn't even cost a penny. So I guess that you and others are equally disgusted! Then we are on the same page. But I can tell you if they come here to the US and I hear they are getting some security at our expense, I will object by calling my congressional representatives and my state representatives to object big time.
1. Does taxpayer refer to those who pay income tax or does it include other forms of tax? (For 2018-19 the projected number of people who would pay income tax was 31 million.)
2. What does this 'cost' include? Security? That is covered by Scotland Yard and secretive, so nope I doubt that it is included (if the security costs of Meghan's big celebrity wedding were as reported, that was about one pound per income tax paying person on top of her day-to-day security costs). Tours? That is covered by the Foreign Office and the country to be visited, so nope, I doubt that it is included (but I may be wrong on that one).
3. The Sovereign Grant is not actually a cost to the taxpayer. The Queen manages Crown Estates, which run businesses and make profit (after all expenses are paid - staff, maintenance, stock, utilities ...). The Queen gives all this profit to the government to do with whatever they want but, as agreed, the government then gives her back 15% (normal) to 25% (when there are extensive renovations needed for Crown properties). Would you run a business and happily pay 75-85% tax? It's pretty steep. The taxpayer gains from the Queen managing the Crown Estates (if you use the stupidly simple and misleading one pound analogy, then the Queen actually gives three pounds or a bit more to every income taxpayer every year).
This one pound per person is complete false logic and covers up a far more complicated financial arrangement. Besides, one pound per person may be minimal, but add all the one pounds up and 31 million pounds is a sizeable amount and could, each year, be used for something significant. (Imagine you spent 2 pounds every working day on a luxury takeaway coffee and then for a whole year saved that money by putting it in a jar and skipped the coffee - at the end of the year you would have about 640 pounds in the jar, which is quite a meaningful amount.)
Income from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are a more murky affair, but I think those profits are also taxed (the normal corporate tax rates). Like a business owner, Her Maj and Charles keep the profit after tax to do with whatever they want (Charles gives a huge chunk to William and Harry but he also uses that profit to fund projects in the Duchy plus his many other charitable projects and so on).
Meghan and Harry? They are no longer working for the firm nor even living in the UK so they should not get any share of income from the Crown properties or the Duchies (kind of like resigning but keeping all the company perks, including the company credit card). They should not be funded in any way, including security.
I actually am in sympathy with the British and the Commonwealth subjects as the Queen and by extension the BRF has been disrespected beyond belief by a blood Prince, an heir and his most indulged and disgraceful wife. I'm embarrassed she is an American. I think Wallis was a better woman than Meghan.
Mark me down too, as American and disgusted by what M has done to the BRF
But this situation aka Royal mess is coming back to our shores via Victoria Canada. Just give the most Directly Dumped Dumbartons a few months. But then maybe not. The Dumped Duplicitous Duo might remain in BC for taxation reasons... and really Hollywood is a short plane flight away as long as Corona virus stays at bay.
https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com/post/190866666606/do-you-think-the-better-plan-wouldve-been-to-call#notes
1. I can't see Meghan living in Botswana (but can see Harry there). Meghan went there twice with Harry, before she got the ring on her finger. Before Harry, she visited Rwanda and India, both trips to be used to 'raise her profile as a humanitarian'. Living in the bush, even if in a luxury home, is just not Meghan's thing. (While Archie is pre-school age would be the perfect time to do it, and, yes, there is Internet connection in the bush.)
2. The LA celebrity lifestyle is perfectly Meghan (back home as a Duchess with her trophy husband) but I don't think they could afford it (unless they got a freebie), and I don't think Harry was into that idea (unless he had a deal with an LA-based production company to do a wildlife series or something like that ... I'm not sure I believe that he is heavily involved in a mental health series with Oprah as he does not seem to be in the right place to do any work for it). I would be surprised if they do go to LA next as they would have to afford a house there (plus the lifestyle) and have work that can be based in an LA office (but Megsy has the idea that she is going to have a house with office and a boardroom ... amateur!).
I was being very simplistic but in terms of direct taxation it does only come to about £1 a year. You are right about the Sovereign Grant but from that also comes payment to the other Royals when representing the Queen, to include the Princess Royal, the Wessexes, etc. It is extremely complicated but no one feels that the Harkles should receive any funding whatsoever from the UK when they have said they want to become self sufficient. How they are going to do that is the question. They have no skills to offer and the attraction of Harry was an introduction to the other members of the BRF which no longer exist. They have also shown that they have no loyalty and can't work under instruction or so called pressure.
I hope they stay in Canada for the majority of the time, sadly Im afraid they may base themselves out of LA. I still think she plans to run for office. Cali will vote her in too.
As for CoVid, we frequent this well known Asian Market for a lot of ME fair and it has been recently purchased by new Chinese owners and of course it is now fully stocked with all sorts of exotic food from China. Has me a little concerned about shopping there now. It has the best olive oil in town in oil cans straight from Lebanon. But I think for the immediate future we will order from California. A bit scary this situation.
The HAMS need to do something other than be the dinner speaker at some nondescript bank conference. Heck they didn't even get good PR because it was so secretive and what did leak out was abysmal...Harry and the Dead Diana Road Show. Who wants to book that flop again. Why is it taking so long for an Ellen or Oprah interview? Are they waiting till spring? They may find their sell-by-date has passed and they are 'stale and smell' now!
The sooner they fail the better. I want to see an end to the duplicitous duo, the Have A Massive Stinker (HAMS) and down the toilet they go! Phewwwwww!
>>> I still think she plans to run for office. Cali will vote her in too.<<
I vigorously disagree about Calif. residents voting her in unless she runs for office in Crenshaw (thinks SE LA, Watts territory). Politics is cutthroat and the politicians won't move over to let her in. I ran for office in Texas and lived in California for 35 years. If she tried running for a city council seat (not even Mayor) maybe she might have a chance but not for any state representative or higher office. Career politicians will not let Meg get the democratic party nomination cause she hasn't earned it. First, you got to get the party's committee approval before you run in the primary.
I ran as an Independent and did well although I was required to jump several additional hoops that the Dems and Reps didn't have too.
How old are some of those career politicians? She may not get it the first round but look how Oprah catapulted BO to stardom overnight. I hope t8 G8d you are 4ight and Im wrong. Oprah and Gail have surely been rubbing elbows with both of them.
Sorry for typos.
Didn't we recently read she wasn't the favorite among the yachting set? Probably because she isn't very warm or personable is my bet. Does she look like a good listener to you? No.
Does she appear to take direction well? No.
She will not do well in politics.
I think if Meghan were charismatic people would like her more and she would have more friends and she would be more popular with strangers.
Unless you are an independent or a third party candidate you have to be acceptable the party 1st line of politics which is being acceptable to the lowest level party caucus. The party will review your qualifications and may not endorse you at the primary level. If you are lucky and you don't have any competition in your own party for the position at the primary then you will get to first base. But generally, you will need the acceptance and backing of the party's power structure, at the primary level. Yes, you can be a dark horse candidate but you will have an uphill struggle. She has name recognition but that does not mean being popular. Many may resent some stupid D-list actress thinking shew has the heart and soul for the people. Californians arent stupid and they would want someone who truly cares about them. This is where I see she has a problem. She has a horrendous track record of not caring for her Dad, her family, the Queen, the British, her ex's etc...she is a cold bitch, a faux humanitarian, She really hasn't done much in her life and she is almost 40.
Her opponents would have a field day throwing mud at her and it will stick. Heck, I was 65 and my opponent let this guy write on his Campaign Facebook page that I mowed my yard in the nude...I objected but my opponent didn't take it off his website. Can you imagine what they would write about Meghan? She didn't even work in the US mostly. and really is out of touch with Americans. When she left the UK she didn't come back...no, she holed up in a Canadian mansion. Heck she has never been a California homeowner. She didn't go to a California university even
She would be disastrous at speaking to the electorate with her word salad. Forget debates. She does not have the knowledge to think on her feet and respond well. I have seen videos if her speaking and it is atrocious.
To elaborate on Meghan personally ...it has been reported she is not capable of small talk and therefor would be inept at 'meet and greets'. Not to be rude but I think she lacks good grooming and stylish clothes that fit. She could bring Harry but he would outshine her because people would want to meet him not her.
Then there is the whole other matter that most likely her opponents would be so much more qualified. The party rewards those who have served the party well. Maybe she could buy favor if Harry was willing to part with a lot of money toward Democratic candidates and their causes. Of course, HRC and Oprah could support her and undoubtedly that would be a major plus, but would they? I wouldn't bet on a loose canon with all the negatives she possesses.
To get through the primary, she would have to be in some office without anyone running against her on the ticket. In November, the way she might squeak through is if they were able to convince everyone to then vote straight ticket and she was a byproduct.
To get through the primary, she would have to be in some office without anyone running against her on the ticket. In November, the way she might squeak through is if they were able to convince everyone to then vote straight ticket and she was a byproduct.
As far as charisma goes, Bloomberg and HRC could use a big fat dose and looks like he's buying the ticket.
With MM and PH's big mouths, I certainly don't think we can rule out their wokeness activist' political speeches in the US anymore than the Brits hoped to do in their own country.
And as for Obama, he was an unknown junior Senator until Oprah had him on her show. All the charisma in the world could have never done for him what she was able to do in one sitting.
And I don't want to be disrespectful to Nutty by referencing the current political atmosphere And the Harkles ties to it, however, I find it hard not to mention with all of the political class in which they have surrounded themselves.
So for this, I apologize.
If Clinton is on the ticket with Bloomberg, he'll be finished so fast he won't know what happened.
I think this information (given to Drudge) is a trial balloon, as well as a distraction from the multiple negative reports coming out regarding Bloomberg's past.
Clinton not only lacks charisma, she has very dedicated haters. People who will actively vote against her. She should not be anywhere near the Democratic ticket, and my guess is she won't be, in the end.
I would love to see Meg campaign for Clinton. If you dislike Meg, you couldn't root for a better script than that.
Meg would be a disastrous politician. She's too sensitive. I think she would snap at whatever reporter started to ask her basic vetting questions. We've seen some of that this cycle with Joe Biden. Some people just don't handle such dialogue well.
Meg's ideal political scenario would be to do what Bloomberg is doing now. Phone in the PR from a thousand miles away, while avoiding debates and getting dusted up. The problem for Meg is she's about 60 billion dollars short of being able to conduct such a strategy.
Finally, Meg lacks the charisma to be a good political candidate. In short, she does not have "it".
Markle does not have the money to mount a campaign (he's a billionaire), no successes other than a minor role in a minor cable TV show, and a wedding where her dress didn't fit. The stats of her Vogue issue must be in the toilet for it to be discounted before it even hit the shelves. Naturally, I could go on. There have been candidates who've been actors (witness Arnold Schwarzenegger) who've become politicians, but he wasn't particular successful and did a lot of kicking of the financial can down the road. California was operating in deficit on his departure. Ronald Reagan was also another California Governor who was capitulated into the Presidency, but he had his Kitchen Cabinet, who were formidable politicians in their own right, and he was more of a figurehead than anything else. Meese, Schultz, Baker, etc. ran the White House, not him. He was good for the photo ops.
Markle goes through staff like they are throw-away Kleenex. You can't run a successful campaign without a crew of really good staffers. And anyone with a brain would be foolish to join a campaign of a woman who just jettisoned her team in the BRF without looking back or even offering a word of sympathy. People pay attention to that. She would be one of those candidates who flame out early because she wouldn't be getting the numbers she thought she should be getting, and she would keep firing her campaign directors, even though she'd blow off campaign stops, and the ones she where she did appear she would be in in ratty ill-fitting wigs, while merching clothes. In fact, it would BE THE SAME LIFE SHE FOUND ABHORRENT AS A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY!!!!!!! She hated the glad-handing, cooing over the babies, etc. How would running for political office be any different? She's nuts.
She left, she may have left for numerous reasons, like the other girls did. They were together on and off for 9 years, maybe it came to natural end. I don’t think we can correctly analyse very personal reasons why couples break up. 😟
I do think Harry has always wanted to leave his royal life, but never had the guts to, maybe he had no clue how to or what he’d do once he left. 🥴
Oh..... I watched the programme about the royal jewels with tiara-gate tonight.
Eugenie had earmarked a tiara and Meghan wanted to wear the same one. Meghan was refused, Harry then said the infamous line...’what Meghan wants Meghan gets’... and the Queen said ‘Meghan will get what’s she’s given’. Neither Eugenie or Meghan got the tiara’s they wanted to wear. We didn’t get told which tiara Eugenie and Meghan originally wanted, we just know it was the same one. 🥴
Now THAT would be interesting if the phrase comes up again. Meghan trying to get the support of the American public because she's a homegrown royal. Would be really scraping the bottom of the barrel, but she is at the bottom of the barrel.
Similarly, Meghan would be crazy to deliberately shine a spotlight (yey) on royal pregnancy and surrogacy rumours that would immediately come back to bite her, but what else is new?
If the rumour was aimed at Kate it's patently ridiculous. Anyone with eyes could see Kate was really pregnant each time. Somehow, the subtlety of some signs makes them even more convincing, such as the very, very slight puffiness she had in her ankles and feet that she doesn't have at any other time. Not the same as the slight weight gain (which really suited her BTW).
Another thing in that Christopher Andersen book was about how Kate, during the 2007 breakup when she did the classic things to get a man back (and they worked!) really drove herself to get even thinner. To go down a further dress size and get even more toned, when she was already slender. Something that was shown off to perfection - if you like that kind of thing - when she was training with that team of female rowers. Apparently William saw the photos and couldn't get over how beautiful she was. It must be a great strain to be married to a man who is a prince and will one day be King, whose personal aesthetic is so demanding for a woman to maintain if she wants to keep his attention IN THAT WAY.
Don't accuse me of coming over all 1950s housewife. I'm just facing realities. Couples love on many levels and that aspect is only one, but it's an important one with men such as William and Harry. And here I would class them together, despite how far William has come as a man. They're used to getting what they want (or in Harry's case, what he thinks he wants). Yet another of those hidden pressures on Kate that she just gets on with.
https://www.ccn.com/meghan-markle-fanatics-shamelessly-hijack-caroline-flacks-suicide/
Exactly. In my original reply to Annie, I was going to add the example of Meghan. She’s a foreign born royal because she’s an American, and married into the British royal family. 🤗
I saw signs of it by Megs fans on the DM comments on Saturday, and thought it was disgusting and stooping very low indeed. How desperate and deluded are they! 🙄😩
It beggars belief how they can even try to compare Meghan's situation to Caroline's.
It is literally vomit inducing!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8011899/The-Royal-Family-website-suffers-embarrassing-blunder-links-Chinese-porn-page.html
https://twitter.com/gossipgirl9283/status/1229205483669610498
The subject was "what kind of mother just leaves her baby and jets around the world?" but I thought this one comment was spot on:
"from the body language of the latest sighting- she is firmly in charge. He looks like her hungover teenage son."
Now I have to go back and find that de-planing photo!
Yes I thought this. Harry looks like her hanger-on in that photo, except for the major point that she only had claims to be a player because of him. They're cancelling each other out now. On such thin ice.
Imagine being them. I would be massively stressed and panicking about the rest of my life. I'd be wanting to find a nice cosy rabbit burrow to hide in. Well, I guess that's what they've been doing for months. Now they're emerging - here and there - they look defiant but deflated. Meghan's visibly hustling but Harry switched off long ago. She'll end up ditching him but what then?
I feel the same way when I read about people who embezzle from their companies (about once a month in the local paper) or in movies when you can tell someone is going to get in bigger trouble and you wish they would just not do that one. more. thing. that will deepen their involvement. For her, its too late to come clean, I would say.
Him . . . I can't imagine being him. With all my powers of empathy (INFP), I can't imagine being so indulged, so dimwitted, so petulant. None of that would have been tolerated in my childhood, and I have smart parents (so I would have inherited some smarts) and one D in geography and one plagiarized art class would NEVER have happened. And at a private school, where you pay to attend? NEVER.
Princess Beatrice wedding: Bea and Edo’s celebrations banished from Queen’s palace
As announced in a statement earlier this month, the celebrations won’t be held within the walls of the palace but in its lavish garden.
Now, the Mail on Sunday has claimed Beatrice and Edoardo, also known as Edo by friends and family, will only be allowed to celebrate their nuptials in a “posh tent” placed in Buckingham Palace’s gardens.
The Sunday paper wrote yesterday the guests of Beatrice and Edo, won’t “be allowed” to enter the palace itself.
The newspaper also claimed the couple won’t be allowed to take the traditional official pictures within Buckingham Palace.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1243305/princess-beatrice-wedding-edoardo-mapelli-mozzi-reception-queen-palace-royal-wedding-2020
Instead of shiftily getting off planes with a shameless grifter, thousands of miles from home and family, Harry could today have been coming in from his Hertfordshire fields (or his orangery!), to a warm kitchen, a welcoming wife, a cat by the Aga, a cake on the table and a happy baby in a high-chair. Living like Kate's kids, going for long walks, sniffing bluebells and watching the fire on a rainy day. It's not a piece of absurd pastoral nonsense. Such a life is entirely attainable for them, is better for them, and better for us. We end up paying for them anyway, so I'd rather pay for people leading healthy well-adjusted lives, bringing up healthy well-adjusted children. Poor, poor Archie. Think how he would love a day with Kate's kids. I do hope, wherever he is, that he's warm and loved.
The UK public are perfectly entitled to have an opinion about this pair.
And by the way, pound as in lb is used for weight; £ as in currency (or GBP if you prefer)is totally different.
Isn’t The Express also one of Megs mouth pieces? 🥴
And by the way, pound as in lb is used for weight; £ as in currency (or GBP if you prefer)is totally different.’
I thought we had a Meg super fan commenting, but reading subsequent comments, maybe not. 🥴 If a person doesn’t have a £ sign on their keyboard writing ‘pound(s) sterling’ would have sufficed too. 🤗
Had to ask my 12 year old adorable geek offspring how to get the £ sign - it's shift and 3 lol.
I just tested this on a Mac. The combination option+3 produces the symbol above. (Handy as the 3 occupies the same key as the pound symbol #.)
Not sure why we're discussing this but just thought I'd join in : )
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/02/blind-item-2_16.html
the "foreign" royal who is blabbing about a fake pregnancy...could be Autumn Kelly who is Canadian born and divorcing from Peter Phillips, queen's grandson. Maybe she is both talking and could be outed due to divorce proceedings.
Frankly - she could also be the blind about the "state" money
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/02/blind-item-3_16.html
It would be a totally lame blind - but it does fit as they have 2 kids and are divorcing which could mean rumors in play.
1. Meghan would end up like Fergie, but worse off. She can sell herself as a duchess, but can't sell access to anyone in the royal family.
2. They would have to change everything they have spent more than a year setting up ... sussexroyal would have to go for their IG, website, all the trademarks they have applied to register. The melt down in the Sussex household would be epic.
Or, BP could just issue a statement that the Sussexes do not represent the BRF in any way (and reinforce that by not inviting them to any official events including Trooping the Colour).
As everyone keeps pointing out in this comments section, without the 'royal' links to the BRF, the Sussexes actually do not have much to offer. How many people will be taken in by the spin (making much out of nothing, such as she does for her 'humanitarian' credentials)?
Remember the Windsors? He was a former king; she was sophisticated and classy and stylish (no matter what her haters say), but they were reduced to magazine interviews and photo shoots to supplement their income (they got an allowance from the BRF plus took a lot of wealth with them).
>>>Or, BP could just issue a statement that the Sussexes do not represent the BRF in any way (and reinforce that by not inviting them to any official events including Trooping the Colour).<<<
The issue I see is that many people appear at the Trooping parade that do not officially represent the BRF--- Peter and Autumn, the York sisters, for example, as well as more distant relations.
I do agree they shouldn't use SussexRoyal as that implies more than a familial relationship.
That mean spirited article about Bea and Edo’s wedding tent sounds like pure vindictive Meg. Though, given her gypsy vagabond situation out in Siberia, would she even have access to any plans Bea May have? It could be completely made up of course.
Bea’s wedding at the end of May would be perfect weather for a garden reception, and huge marquee tents are all the rage with the posh set. This may very well be what the couple wants. The phrasing of the article does sound like sour lemons from Someone whose “cookbook launch party” was banned to a tent on KP grounds rather than the KP kitchen where she wanted to have it. She had gotten herself banned from the Palace, Requiring Harry’s attendance to even set foot on the property… Pictures of the event show him suspiciously if not demonstratively high on that occasion. There may have been some security concerns about some of the attendees of Muslim persuasion and potential links to terrorism.
My money’s on Bea and Edo being happy with a garden do.
Beatrice and Eduardo could do far worse.
@xxxxx
I hope they stay in Canada for the majority of the time, sadly Im afraid they may base themselves out of LA. I still think she plans to run for office. Cali will vote her in too.
@Portcitygirl:
If Meghan runs for office in the US, then if her title hasn’t already been stripped by whomever is the reigning monarch, she will likely lose it then. When people take the oath of office for most any elected post in the US, they swear allegiance to the United States. Doubtful the RF would allow her to be known as “United States Senator from California, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.” That wouldn’t sit well with the UK public.
Doubtful she could get elected here if she had that title. Americans would not vote for an American citizen who holds a royal title. It is legal for US citizens to hold royal titles, but the optics are incredibly bad, so someone like that probably has no hope of being elected in the US. People would question her loyalty to the United States. She won’t give the duchess title willingly.
Re. ER’s jewels
I’m touched by your confidence, but I readily admit that I don’t know very much about the Royal jewel collection. I said fine jewelry at the mall one Christmas season, and had to do a crash course in the 4 Cs of diamonds. Skippy seems to post a great deal about the royal tiaras, which was interesting reading, but I find myself not coveting any Royal jewelry for myself. Far to ostentatious for little old me, and the Tiaras look quite heavy and like they would dig into one’s head.
I think our Mischief Girl is very knowledgeable about the jewels. 👸
Sorry about the pound sign...not being British (which you should have figured out) I didn't know how to produce it on my keyboard.
And a Meg SuperFan...oh hardly. I am about as opposite as you can get. I thought all the Brits here saying it only costs them one pound per year for the Harkles was saying they don't care what the Harkles do because it is not much money out of their pocket.
Bottom line, the UK public has this mess and they aren't protesting, there isn't any uproar to the Queen, they just keep funding these two who are telling you that you are toxic and racist.
When I was talking about direct taxation, I wasn't dismissing it's importance. It's more that we feel duped by Harry who I suspect is now showing his true colours. We are generally very patriotic and love our Queen so for him to disrespect her and the country in such a way and the selfish demands he made make us so angry. At the moment the BRF are leaving the door open but it won't be open forever.
@Teasmade - I was reading about one of the Dutch royals who has to earn a living. He's a lawyer and is doing perfectly well. I agree that with all their resources there's really no excuse for not setting to and building a proper career. Not a flaky thing like Peter Phillips or Beatrice, but a proper respectable job where you can hold your head up high. Live a good life. And if you're not conventionally bright like Harry, do as I've said before. Seek an outdoor life like farming, with people in the back office to help you. It's all there on a plate for them.
Instead of shiftily getting off planes with a shameless grifter, thousands of miles from home and family, Harry could today have been coming in from his Hertfordshire fields (or his orangery!), to a warm kitchen, a welcoming wife, a cat by the Aga, a cake on the table and a happy baby in a high-chair. Living like Kate's kids, going for long walks, sniffing bluebells and watching the fire on a rainy day. It's not a piece of absurd pastoral nonsense. Such a life is entirely attainable for them, is better for them, and better for us. We end up paying for them anyway, so I'd rather pay for people leading healthy well-adjusted lives, bringing up healthy well-adjusted children. Poor, poor Archie. Think how he would love a day with Kate's kids. I do hope, wherever he is, that he's warm and loved.
________
The best summation. The Dumbarton Derived Dilettantes blew it by not accepting Charles' offer of the Herefordshire estate which had/has unlimited possibilities. They were too city-bred to accept this offer. Too much millennial internet brainwashed, even though they are too aged out to be millennials.
___________
Meghan and Harry ‘speeding up LA plans’ despite Charles ...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1172541
Sep 01, 2019 · PRINCE HARRY and Meghan Markle could speed up their plans to relocate to LA rather than take on an estate created by Prince Charles for his son, according to a royal source.
Royal snub: Prince Harry LA bound and disregards Prince ...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1172713/royal-news-latest-meghan-markle-prince...
Sep 02, 2019 · MEGHAN MARKLE and Prince Harry are set to snub to Prince Charles’s plans for his second son to live on an estate in Herefordshire. By Brian McGleenon PUBLISHED: 04:49, Mon, Sep …
Author: Brian Mcgleenon
Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Snub Prince Charles’ Dream For ...
https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry...
Prince Harry and Markle snubbed Prince Charles’ dream for them to live in the Hertfordshire estate by planning to move to LA. Griffiths suggested that in “LA, even the most high-profile ...
Author: Catherine Armecin
Bluebell: Agree that it is very odd that the DM has all the merch details. Together with her big smile, it does seem that she tipped off the media.
I wonder who was looking after Archie. Seems like a long time to leave him alone. Many mothers would bring the child and nanny along, but I guess that she didn't want to be disturbed.
--------------------------------------
"Archie" is a photoshop. At least, I hope so. If not, he is doomed.
Even disregarding the weird baby-wagging she does, like she is your childless former college roommate carrying your kid with a stinky diaper...
A mother - any mother would never leave this kid behind as much as they do. Seriously?
Leaving your (high-value target for kidnapping) baby in the care of some unknown nanny for days, weeks at a time - in another country...across the ocean?
What could go wrong?
Quoting Flooper:"
Regarding Intestacy -
I've just administered the estate of my cousin who rejected the family in the mistaken belief that she was nothing to do with us. Still, she knew little of genetics or the make-up of the London poor in the 18th century, and I suspect we have an unexpected ancestor whose ghostly presence showed only in her face and that of her mother.
She did, however, hate lawyers even more than she hated the family and died without leaving a will. Had we not made a claim based on provable family history, the money would not have gone to the Royal family, but to HM Government, a rather different matter.
My cousin did not live in the Duchy of Cornwall so if we had not claimed the money, the `pathway' it would have followed, in theory, would have been to the `Duchy of Lancaster' ie the Crown, in other words, HM Treasury, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, otherwise known as the Government.
Now I come think of it, FWIW, my first husband's second cousin was at some point Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Neither, sadly, is still in the land of the living.
Dying intestate in Cornwall, with no qualifying heirs, means that the money does go to the Duchy but is ring-fenced for the Duke's charities, within the Duchy I think.
Moral? Always make sure your Will is valid and up-to-date!
I’m not wealthy, but I am hosting a wedding reception in my garden, with tents, this coming summer. It’s not because we don’t want people in the house, but because the garden provides the desired theme and setting.
Take a look at Pippa and James’ “tent”, I’ve seen similar with Beckhams and others.
https://people.com/royals/pippa-middleton-glass-wedding-reception-tent/
Just thought I'd mention something Harry Markle said way back at the beginning - is this the first trip they were supposed to have gone on, the one on the QT?
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/meghan-caught-out-lying/
Blind Item #7
The former alliterate royal wants an honorary doctorate. That is part of the deal she is trying to swing in addition to some type of honorarium.
Source is Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_degree#Institutions_not_awarding_honorary_degrees
But other links say the same thing. I doubt the blind is accurate but if it is, they could have saved plane fare. And good luck being the commencement speaker. Last year Stanford had Apple CEO Tim Cook. Markle this year? Ah, no.
Prince Harry’s series on mental health with Oprah Winfrey involves visits to hospitals and treatment centres in the UK, charity reveals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8013495/Prince-Harrys-series-mental-health-involves-visits-hospitals-treatment-centres-UK.html
Earl Snowden and wife are divorcing
"I don't believe she is Archie's mother...if there is any kind of baby in or near her."
I agree 100% that she is not Archie's mum. For a long time I wondered why they allowed Archie to remain listed as 7th in the line of succession when everything pointed to surrogacy and then someone made a comment on another blog and I had an epiphany.
What if the BRF *knows* Archie isn't of the body (maybe not even Megan's or Harry's at all) or that there is no Archie, but is keeping mum on that part and keeping the line of succession in place in case there is a divorce? If Harry and Meghan divorce, Archie has to return to the UK as is required when a child is underage but still part of the line of succession (at least that's what I understand).
So then Megan's hand would be forced. She would have to give up Archie or risk having to tell the world her pregnancy was a sham or that he didn't exist.
Thoughts, Nutties?
Overall, HMTQ is not having a good start to her year :(
>>>If Harry and Meghan divorce, Archie has to return to the UK as is required when a child is underage but still part of the line of succession (at least that's what I understand).
So then Megan's hand would be forced. She would have to give up Archie or risk having to tell the world her pregnancy was a sham or that he didn't exist.
Thoughts, Nutties?<<<
I don't think there is any legal requirement for Archie or any greatgrandchild would have to return/remain in the UK in the event of a divorce among one of the Queen's grandchildren.
I agree, and it seems continuing from last year. Horrid time for the royal family as a whole. Can it get any worse? 😳🥴😳
Note that Harry still uses HRH on their IG account. It is not difficult to make that change, which could have been done more than a month ago with the interim agreement.
The pair are not good with details and are not reliable in terms of agreements they make.
I hope all this is taken into account when they sign off on the final deal for the pair.
Why is an American using the UK for a documentary produced by an American company? Simply trading on the HRH?
This has been discussed in depth before. The royal family are not a normal family, etc., where many laws do not apply. Archie is line to succession, he is a future grandchild to a Monarch, he therefore would have to be returned to the UK. 😉
The former alliterate royal wants an honorary doctorate. That is part of the deal she is trying to swing in addition to some type of honorarium.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/02/blind-item-7_17.html
"Alliterate" is the obvious cue /99% transparent by now that it refers to amazing Megsy darling. This blind looks like nonsense. And M will not be running for any US political office. Don't waste time typing about this.
>>>This has been discussed in depth before. The royal family are not a normal family, etc., where many laws do not apply. Archie is line to succession, he is a future grandchild to a Monarch, he therefore would have to be returned to the UK.<<<
Yes, I know it has been discussed before as I have been part of it. This always keeps coming up so sorry I will address it again.
But the fact remains, the law does not cover Archie at this point and the Queen is far from dead. If a divorce were to happen it will probably be sooner than later. I cannot believe Charles, if and when he becomes King would wrench Archie away from his Mother (talk about how racist that would look, Yikes!).I suspect that Harry and Meg would want to be reasonable and decide what is best for the child without a horrid custody battle.
With the recent announcement about Peter and Autumn Philips there has not been one word about their children being kept in the UK even tho it has been mentioned Autumn might return with the girls to Canada (where they have dual citizenship)..
There are others in the royal family who are in the line of succession (as are their children) and they live/lived abroad. Peter and Autumn Phillips lived abroad with their children for a few years.
The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family of 1717 is the source of the confusion.
1. It is highly doubtful that the Queen, or even a King Charles or King William, would ever try to use this ancient law to take Archie away from Meghan and force him to reside in the UK.
2. If they did try, modern laws would trump this ancient rule/law and all advisers would advise them not to even try.
Those with respect for the monarch probably do ask permission before taking minor children to live abroad as a formality. The Queen has never refused permission and she is highly unlikely to do so unless Meghan really goes off the rails and endangers the life of the child, but even then that battle could be easier fought using modern laws (assuming there is a divorce).
It is very probably Meghan and Harry did not ask permission before going off to Canada for what would be a permanent move. Will there be consequences for their disrespect? Let's see what the final deal looks like and what happens after that (Meghan and Harry will break every agreement made).
Regarding enty: I think he is FOS regarding royals, with the only exception is I think he might be right about them house hunting in SoCal.
The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family of 1717. The royal family is 1000 years old, their entire lives revolve around old rules of protocols and ancient traditions etc., and many absurd in modern times. However, ancient or not, the royal family just ‘might’ say go and be gone for good, and also be prepared not to see Archie. Harry would need to decide where he wanted to live if he and Meghan divorced, if he wanted regular contact with Archie that is.🥴 I do think their divorce would be very acrimonious. 😟
@Tatty, oh I believe so too. It can get soooo much worse! 😩😳
Hello Nutties All,
MM a politician. No. Too much work. Too much contact with plebs. As it has been floated before, perhaps she would angle for an ambassadorship position--that is more her level. Supposedly she asked TBlair for some type of position. Although, re her divisiveness, I can't see any administration giving her one, unless it was to Botswana..which she would not take. It would have to be the UN or UK to reflect her inflated sense of self. I too wish I could figure out how to change from unknow to actual name!
Unknown @12:24 am, you could be right. She loves to believe she is up to being an ambassador or UN because she thinks she's a global citizen with plenty of platitudes she could pontificate to the unwashed masses who adore her.... Harry is starting to look like the male version of Echo.
"" Do other nutties think we should be kind to MM? after all we know nothing about her life and it's challenges, playing devils advocate here""
At times I've asked myself are we being fair to Meghan with respect to diagnosing her having Narcissistic Personality Disorder? How can we say with proof Harry is using Drugs? Can we be sure it was a surrogacy? How do we know a child does not exist? That is there is an Archie, it is being kept by his biological parents? These are extremely serious issues. Would we want the public saying a falsehood about even one of these concerning ourselves or a loved one? Look how we get mad on here when someone just simply insults us or calls us names.
Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of thinking of a couple of these and writing about such. But maybe it suffices we intimate it is a theory but not necessarily the absolute truth.
Do I feel sorry for Meg...not really. First she claims she doesn't read what is written about her. She also bought into the whole world of becoming a public figure starting with her venture into acting and her social media forays on the world stage. She married one of the most famous bachelors in the world, if not The most famous bachelor at the time. She paid for PR to put her name and her doings out there for all to see. She should expect criticism.
Indeed, we are free to have our opinion on many items. That being said, I think we should be careful and considerate when it comes to saying Harry is taking drugs. We have no proof of that and it is a very awful allegation to make without proof. I am not trying to be holier than thou. Just expressing my views, of which I have a very negative opinion of Meg and what the HAMS have done so terribly wrong to the Queen, the BRF and the UK public. Now they are coming into America (my country) and will no doubt cause problems here and I will resent it and will protest any expenditure of govt. money to protect them. I doubt she would run for political office in my area if at all, but will object if she does. In a perverse sense, I guess I can hope she 'markles' any US candidate she chooses to support that I don't like. lol
But do I feel sorry for her or Hapless Harry, a Big Fat 'No. I don't in particular feel sorry too much for Archie, as he will live a life of luxury and is seventh in line to the most famous royal family in the world. I feel sorry for all the poor children the world over, not a child who will want for nothing (many children do fine born to two idiots).
In a way I'm asking . . . I mean, I'm prepared to be jumped on here but it's not really the queen's business, is it. These are people in their 30s, 40s ad 50s and they SAY it's amicable; why not take them at their word and move on? Sure I guess it's technically sad, but maybe not. Maybe they'll be happier this way.
Again, I'm sure I'll be blasted but I felt this way with the announcement of the Phillipses, and I kept quiet then.
If the queen wants to be sad, she should look into the doings of her "favorite child" and her "favorite grandson"; matters that ARE her business and that she has some control over.
Does anyone see what I'm saying?
Right click on your name. Or just click. In the upper right, click on Edit Profile. Scroll down to Display Name, and type in your name of choice. Scroll ALL the way down, and click on Save Profile. Ta-da!
That said, my thought is this: if H and M divorce, H is going to walk away with custody of Archie. Why? Because if they don't get Archie, then they will find a way to quietly release information that indicates Archie isn't hers/was born via surrogacy or something else along those lines. The BRF is playing the long game.
Almost all of us here have questions about Archie and the secrecy surrounding his birth, his fluctuating age/weight/size/etc, Markle's pregnancy, her ability to conceive, etc. Couple all this with outstanding questions as to why Archie has no title but is 7th in succession, and it kind of makes sense (as much as it can make sense), that he's a trump card. The BRF won't release details that they know he's not of the blood and won't confirm the pregnancy didn't happen as Markle portrayed, but in exchange, if the divorce happens, he's coming back to the UK. If there is an Archie that is. *shrugs* Trust me, I'm trying to make sense of all this as much as anyone is, lol.
Well I don’t think this version was to avoid ‘accusations of unfairness / racism aimed at Markle’. Within the programme, when it was mentioned Meghan couldn’t wear the tiara she wanted, Lady Colin Campbell said..’and quite rightly she was excluded from wearing it (the tiara Meghan wanted, that Eugenie had already earmarked),’, another royal commenter said, perhaps Meghan was only allowed to choose from third class tiaras and Eugenie got to choose from first class tiaras. 😳😂
There were numerous little digs at Megs within the programme. 😀
I use the same method you know. 😍
The Queen is a guardian of the historic royal jewellery and other royal women get it for state events at her discretion. Traditionally it is Queen who advises on which tiara a royal bride would wear, apart from cases where the bride comes from nobility with its own top pieces designed for super important occasions (like Diana's Spencer tiara). I don't believe for a second Queen would ignore Eugenie's wish. Rank may be nothing in our world but in the royal world rank, birth and precedence play a great part. Eugenie as a blood princess takes precedence over Markle in everything, including jewellery. Judging how perfect Eugenie's tiara went with her dress, accessory, wedding scheme I would say it had been chosen and approved long before the wedding. If Markle wanted the same piece, well sorry Megsy.
Regarding Ms. Markle. I think that public figures get far too much flack for their physical appearances. If Ms. Markle is not svelte enough and Kate is TOO slender, where does that leave us? I think it leaves us with little else than a timeline and an valiant attempt to be fair about what she has said in coordination with what she has done.
1. If Caroline Flack had used the wedding of an in-law to announce her pregnancy, thereby deliberately taking away attention from said relative, I would raise an eyebrow. Especially if Caroline had attended that event wearing what were obviously maternity clothes (or made to look like maternity clothes) since there was no physical evidence in the following weeks to indicate that this was a real physical change as opposed to that day being a REAL physical stunt.
2. If Caroline Flack had populated her guest list for her wedding with celebrities she'd never met as opposed to her friends from high school, etc., and only had ONE family member attend, I would raise my other eyebrow. To have denied her father walking her down the aisle because she was determined to have Charles walk her down the aisle because this was the photo op of the century, don't you know, then I would have sprained my other eyebrow.
3. If Caroline Flack had repeatedly (oh, let's put this in bold) aggrandized her resume to nearly Saint Teresa proportions where video evidence shows the exact opposite, then there goes the other eyebrow.
4. If Caroline Flack had begun a relentless merching campaign whereby we can see direct evidence of her with ill-fitting and inappropriate clothes that still had the price tags on them, or the tailor-tacks on garments that are obviously going to be returned, then my eyebrows would have flown off my face.
To be continued.
5. If Caroline Flack had repeatedly expressed herself as an eco-warrior and yet flew on private jets without a single thought that this might be a wee bit hypocritical, spent, what, over a million pounds on clothing her first year of marriage, wore jewelry that was insanely expensive as well, trotted out a new coat every three days, and spent a goddam fortune on designer handbags and sunglasses, then my eyebrows, having flown away, are now in Tahiti drinking mai tais.
6. And then there's the PR. And the repeated attempts to discredit and undermine her in-laws by deliberately releasing PR material on the eve of their schedule events as to, again, take away attention from anyone but her.
So, yeah, let's assume that Caroline Flack hasn't done any this (and a HELL of a lot more because I'm not even touching Archie, the Child-Who-Does-Not-Exist). I get the sense that she was a troubled person. Not that this excuses domestic violence--NOT AT ALL--and that people are reacting to that short life and her sense of she couldn't take it anymore. Ms. Markle doesn't elicit any sympathy, IMO. I believe she's a malignant narc who might have engendered some sympathy early on, but now has proved herself to be an inveterate liar, selfish, toxic, and, frankly, deranged. She is a well of anger.
Many if not most actors crave that constant attention. I get that. But she consistently seeks that attention at the expense of others. She cannot share the spotlight with anyone, and in order to achieve that sole spotlight, resorts to malicious means to obtain it. At some point soon, IMO, she will jettison Harry because it's already obvious that HE is the draw. After all, he's still a prince. And the day SHE realizes it, he will be kicked to the curb or she will start insulting him in public. Or even start undermining him by releasing negative PR like she has done to the rest of the royal family to justify her divorce. She will be unable to stand that HE is the draw, not her.
When I saw Trudy, I thought is that Bluebell! 😂🤣😂 You can resurrect an account/ name if deleted and done within 6 months of initial deletion. 😀
And I hate to say anything faintly pro-Markle, but I loved the tiara she wore. (Deco is my favorite period.) And it went as perfectly as anything could with that ill-fitting, plain-Jane, monstrosity of an upholstery-weight blinding-white sack via the Hou$e of Givenchy. And with her chemically straightened stick-straight hair with the face-framing swoops that she contrived to fall in her face during the ceremony.
In short, it was perfect for her appearance, never mind the political and hierarchical subtleties of how it was determined. To me, anyway.
Yes, the Queen does technically have 'custody' of all children until they reach the age of 18 according to The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family of 1717, which has never been revoked.
However...
1. The Queen has never used the powers this law gives her with regard to royal children and is unlikely to ever do so. If she did, and she was challenged, modern laws on custody and parental powers would trump this ancient law.
2. The same goes for a future King Charles and King William.
However, as I said above, there is evidence/suggestions that modern royals respect this ancient law and do seek permission from the sovereign if they want to take royal children out of the UK to live or even on holiday if the child/children is particularly high in the line of succession. Modern royals do this as a courtesy or a sign of respect. As I said above, the sovereign would be very unlikely to refuse permission if doing so would lead to litigation as the sovereign would probably lose such a legal challenge.
Meghan and Harry did not seek permission to take Archie out of the UK with no intention of returning. I don't know this for certain but am pretty sure about that. It was highly disrespectful of them to do so, and there should be consequences for that. However, short of kidnapping Archie (no way would a sovereign who is not mad do that) or launching a legal challenge (as I have said, the sovereign would lose as modern laws would trump the ancient law) there is nothing the sovereign can do.
Unless Harry returns to the UK to live and Meghan agrees to at least joint custody in the event of a separation/divorce, Archie will never live in the UK (unless they dump him in a boarding school in the UK). No doubt the Queen, Charles and William are not happy about this but, as I explained above, there is nothing they can realistically do. That ancient law requires courtesy and respect for compliance.
I'm dying... that "Tent" is better than my house. Darn.
Am I remembering correctly and WHO WERE YOU? LOL!!!’
So funny! 😂🤣😂 at least I only had one other alias, plus one other completely unknown one! 😂😳 I’m a long time blogger (since 2009), and a lurker on here before I acquired my second alias. I changed to a third one, because someone had a similar name. 😜 Clear as mud? 🤣😂😀😳
2019 Divorce Statistics for the UK (interesting ...):
42% of marriages end in divorce
45-49 is the most common age bracket for men and 40-44 for women
62% of divorces were on petition of the wife
60% of marriages will end in divorce by the 20th wedding anniversary
Overall, the divorce rate has been falling since 2000, but it is still high.
60% of marriages that end in divorce will do so by the 20th wedding anniversary
It does seem like a lot of separations etc, but when you consider the divorce statistics, perhaps not so unexpected. 🥴
To restate it again, "The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family of 1717" is Not an Act of Parliament and only applies to the Monarch's grandchildren not Archie. Supposedly once in recent times, this 'Prerogative' came into play when Diana was considering moving to Australia with William and Harry. She was prevented from taking them and she did not move.
The Queen may live as long as her mother and therefore would not have control over Archie. It is not remarkable that Archie does not have a title even tho he is in the line of succession. Princess Anne declined a title for her son Peter but he was nonetheless in the line of succession (fifth place at the time of his birth).
Sorry if someone has posted this while I have been struggling to type.
Which will make Archie 7 or 8 if the Queen was to die the same age as her mother, so he will still be under 18. He’s still a future monarchs grandchild no matter how you slice it. However, who’s to say Charles will become King? He may die before the Queen, then it’s William’s crown. Do you think he will care, especially how Harry has treated the family? I’d really hate to predict what’s going to happen in 2, 5 or 10 years time, we might be so sick of the royals by then, that we oust the lot. ☹️
>>>He’s still a future monarchs grandchild no matter how you slice it. However, who’s to say Charles will become King? He may die before the Queen, then it’s William’s crown. Do you think he will care, especially how Harry has treated the family?<<<
I agree with you. I hate to say it but Charles doesn't look too healthy lately. It has crossed my mind he might die before the Queen. I really wonder what William thinks about the situation. I imagine he is both heartsick, disgusted and angry all at once. If Harry divorced, I would imagine he would want to return home and I could see William would help Harry do that; return to the fold and help him retain custody of Archie in whatever ways he could.