Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News Part 1: May 2018 - December 2018

[Countessmeout]

I thought Meghan couldn't leave Britain for a certain length of time after her marriage and change in status. There was speculation that they would have a "local" short honeymoon now and a longer overseas one later.

As has been discussed before, if she qualifies for the premium service, her change in VISA could be done same day since she was in the UK. If not, it can take from 2-12 weeks.

It would be interesting to know if they are: 1. In the UK some where on a short honeymoon 2. in Mexico visiting her dad 3. on a proper honeymoon.

I lean towards 1 or 2. For some reason I think they may wait on a full out honeymoon until after all the events in June. Might be a good time right now to visit Tom in Mexico. Unless their actual honeymoon is in the Western hemisphere, making a stop over in Mexico wouldn't make much sense.

 

[Dman]

Wherever they are...I hope they’re having a good time. Don’t need to be at a private, sunny and sandy location to get that honeymoon started.

 

[American Observer7]

I think it may be more likely that they've flown to Mexico to visit Meghan's father and have kept it under the radar. It was stated that they'll take their honeymoon later on possibly when the royals break for summer holidays.

They are on their way to Mexico if they're not there already and from there to their honeymoon is my understanding,

 

[jacqui24]

So not sure how accurate this is, but according to Emily Andrews and Omid Scobie's wedding special OnHeir episode, Harry and Meghan have rented out a house in Oxfordshire for a couple of years.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/63874...anti-terror-cops-armed-with-sub-machine-guns/

 

[Curryong]

My goodness, this Sun article seems to be a basket of ads for beauty/wellness products and celeb places to go !

It is interesting, if true. Oxfordshire is beautiful and the village sounds absolutely lovely, especially as a get-away. Glad that Meghan is going to embrace the country lifestyle including some horse riding.

However, they aren't near any family or close old friends. During the first year or so of marriage that doesn't matter so much, of course.

(Three bedrooms doesn't sound much if they are going to invite people to stay and still accommodate the necessary RPOs though.)

 

[jacqui24]

(Three bedrooms doesn't sound much if they are going to invite people to stay and still accommodate the necessary RPOs though.)

Does RPOs stay in the house with them?

 

[Curryong]

RPOs have accommodation at Anmer. They have to be somewhere very near the royals they're protecting 24/7 or they can't be effective. I don't know whether there's some kind of stable block on the property that could be converted to accommodation, but I doubt it.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

So not sure how accurate this is, but according to Emily Andrews and Omid Scobie's wedding special OnHeir episode, Harry and Meghan have rented out a house in Oxfordshire for a couple of years.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/63874...anti-terror-cops-armed-with-sub-machine-guns/

I suppose some of it could be true but it sounds like a lot of creative writing to me.
And that massive amount of security described-as worked up as some people get over minor costs, I'd think this expense would create massive controversy.

 

[Countessmeout]

RPOs have accommodation at Anmer. They have to be somewhere very near the royals they're protecting 24/7 or they can't be effective. I don't know whether there's some kind of stable block on the property that could be converted to accommodation, but I doubt it.

In the minimalistic description of the home, it stats it has stables.

If this story is true, I have my major doubts, accommodation for RPOs will have been taken into account. They aren't going to want to have the RPOs living with them in close quarters. There must be something on the property where they live off duty.

I still find it unlikely, as lovely as Oxford is, that they have chosen a house away from friends/family any kind of social life. If they have a country home, seems more likely to be on a royal property.

 

[Rudolph]

“The £1.4million retreat was secretly upgraded to receive official anti-terror protection just like Buckingham Palace, No10 and spy centre GCHQ.

The move is believed to be over fears of a Taliban attack after ex-soldier Harry admitted he “blew Taliban extremists to pieces” as a helicopter pilot in Afghanistan.

Police in black combat gear toting military-grade firearms have stopped and searched anyone caught wandering near the hidden Cotswolds woodland retreat.

The special ops team is made up of 12 officers working in rotation plus others from Thames Valley Police in unmarked armed response 4x4s“


I’m sorry but I’m calling BS on this story. There’s a terrorist trial going on right now in London over an ISIS member threatening Prince George by releasing his school’s address with a message “not even the royal family is safe”.

Yet I haven’t heard of KP being upgraded to an anti-terrorist site.

Plus the cost of a 12 man special ops team would be astronomical. All so Harry can live in Oxford?

I’ll need more than The Sun’s word on it.

 

[MARG]

To be honest, I don't think that they will be able to stay outside the royal homes as they require more security than could be accommodated and having to pay to provide housing Protection Officers and upgrading the home to the security level required would be a waste for only two years.

There are homes available on various royal estates and they are going to have to live within the boundaries of Windsor or some such. If more security was required at the wedding because Harry served in Afghanistan and because Meghan is biracial, those issues have not gone away.

I cannot see HM, Prince Philip and his father agreeing to an arrangement that would inconvenience the Protection Service and cost a ridiculous sum of money let alone Harry or Meghan asking them to allow it.

At present, we don't even know if they are in the UK except that with all the travelling they have done over the last couple of years it might be nice to go to ground somewhere like Sandringham or even Balmoral to just have time together.

I could see them wanting to visit Tom Snr but what are the security ramifications of going to Mexico. Would the government have to be informed as Protection Officers are armed and obtaining permission could compromise their security as they cannot swoop in and out as they can to Canada or Africa.

 

[Curryong]

When they visit Meghan's father I can't see it being to his home in Mexico. Too iffy, security-wise, plus the media would swarm. I think it might well be in some secure location in Southern California, nice and secret and tucked away, on a property belonging to a friend of the BRF, something like that.

 

[royal rob]

Yes Curryong I think her father will have to do the traveling. I’m sure he is well enough now or will be in the next couple of weeks.

 

[muriel]

Yes Curryong I think her father will have to do the traveling. I’m sure he is well enough now or will be in the next couple of weeks.

Wonder if he will take his firendly photographers with him!

 

[Lady Reem]

Wonder if he will take his firendly photographers with him!

He’ll likely tip off the Paps about his whereabouts and report any dealings with the Royals to TMZ. He does after all have form for this

The Royals are going to have to be extraordinarily careful when dealing directly with this man. That’s if there is any future contact at all...

 

[Abbigail]

I think it's most likely that Harry and Meghan are on their honeymoon. Wasn't there talk of them going by the end of the month? Of course KP would not give us the exact dates. But it makes sense to me that they would go now and be back in time for Trooping and then start prepping Meghan more for her new role and duties.

 

[Pranter]

They keep such a low profile it's hard to know.


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

Another detail: her previous wedding had been only performed civilly, and the Church doesn't acknowledges it.

That's not true. The Anglican church does acknowledge all marriages. To me it is a big deal that they 'whitewash' her marital history by not even mentioning her previous marriage. A marriage should not be treated as insignificant - unless she also considers her current marriage an insignificant event that hs no further bearing upon her life.

It is also interesting that they highlight her previous charitable work while she was required to give all these positions up upon her engagement.

 

[Osipi]

That's not true. The Anglican church does acknowledge all marriages. To me it is a big deal that they 'whitewash' her marital history by not even mentioning her previous marriage. A marriage should not be treated as insignificant - unless she also considers her current marriage an insignificant event that hs no further bearing upon her life.

It is also interesting that they highlight her previous charitable work while she was required to give all these positions up upon her engagement.

I don't think her previous marriage has any bearing whatsoever on going into her marriage with Harry. Just like Harry's previous relationships have absolutely no bearing on his marriage to Meghan. They're all past relationships with the difference being that one was a legally binding marriage which was resolved with a legally binding divorce.

Just because she relinquished all positions in her previous charitable works to focus on doing the same type of work representing the British royal family, it doesn't take away from the fact that she's experienced in this area. As a perspective, its similar to switching corporations one works for doing the same type of professional work. It just all boils down to highlighting her experience in the field.

 

[Rudolph]

I agree. The palace seems to treat her first marriage as if it never happened. I suppose they view it as a negative against her.

And although really trying to play up her previous charity work, the palace also deemed she wouldn’t be continuing with them.

Not sure what message they’re trying to send.

 

[Abbigail]

That's not true. The Anglican church does acknowledge all marriages. To me it is a big deal that they 'whitewash' her marital history by not even mentioning her previous marriage. A marriage should not be treated as insignificant - unless she also considers her current marriage an insignificant event that hs no further bearing upon her life.

It is also interesting that they highlight her previous charitable work while she was required to give all these positions up upon her engagement.

I'm sorry but I'm confused as to why her first marriage should be mentioned? What relevance does that hold?

 

[TLLK]

I don't think her previous marriage has any bearing whatsoever on going into her marriage with Harry. Just like Harry's previous relationships have absolutely no bearing on his marriage to Meghan. They're all past relationships with the difference being that one was a legally binding marriage which was resolved with a legally binding divorce.

I agree Osipi. Princess Michael of Kent was also previously married, but there is no mention of it in her biography on the British Monarchy site.


By contrast as we know the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Royal were previously married and had children with their ex-husbands, so there is mention of those marriages.

 

[Rudolph]

Everything else about Meghan’s life is mentioned. For most people I think a marriage is a significant event, even if it ended in a divorce. If your doing a biography section on someone and you mention everything but a previous marriage, maybe you want people to forget the whole thing.

 

[Somebody]

I'm sorry but I'm confused as to why her first marriage should be mentioned? What relevance does that hold?

It was the most important commitment she made during her life but unfortunately wasn't able to keep. The names of her parents are also mentioned as is the name of her character in Suits, all irrelevant probably for her current life as a royal duchess but important enough to understand where she is coming from. Her life didn't start when she met/got engaged to/married Harry, that's why they provide quite an extensive overview of her life so far but purposefully exclude the fact that is most relevant to her civil status upon marrying Harry.

 

[Somebody]

I agree Osipi. Princess Michael of Kent was also previously married, but there is no mention of it in her biography on the British Monarchy site.


By contrast as we know the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Royal were previously married and had children with their ex-husbands, so there is mention of those marriages.

I seriously hope people would not think that a marriage is only relevant or important if children resulted from that marriage.

Agreed that it is strange that princess Michael's first marriage isn't included either. I guess they also wanted people to forget about it in her case and they may have succeeded.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I suppose she calls the Queen "Madam" and addresses the PoW as "Sir". Why would she use any other form of address, especially when she barely knows them, especially the Queen ?

Because quite simply, they are her family now. And while I certainly understand why they would addressed that way before she became a member of what they like to call the " Firm" and in the early days of her relationship, it will not always and forever be true that "she barely knows them".

For example I cannot imagine that the DoC is still being advised to address her father-in-law as "Sir" when he is over for tea...she's been in the family for seven years.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think her previous marriage has any bearing whatsoever on going into her marriage with Harry. Just like Harry's previous relationships have absolutely no bearing on his marriage to Meghan. They're all past relationships with the difference being that one was a legally binding marriage which was resolved with a legally binding divorce.

Just because she relinquished all positions in her previous charitable works to focus on doing the same type of work representing the British royal family, it doesn't take away from the fact that she's experienced in this area. As a perspective, its similar to switching corporations one works for doing the same type of professional work. It just all boils down to highlighting her experience in the field.

There is a huge difference between a non-marital relationship and a marital relationship. Until Meghan, Harry had not found not vowed to anyone to stay with that person for life. Meghan on the other hand thought she had found that person in her first husband and declared so before the civil authorities and changed her name to reflect that.

 

[Terri Terri]

Yeah...that same ex-husband is seeking to make a TV show loosely based on his ex-wife. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned IMO!!

 

[Abbigail]

It was the most important commitment she made during her life but unfortunately wasn't able to keep. The names of her parents are also mentioned as is the name of her character in Suits, all irrelevant probably for her current life as a royal duchess but important enough to understand where she is coming from. Her life didn't start when she met/got engaged to/married Harry, that's why they provide quite an extensive overview of her life so far but purposefully exclude the fact that is most relevant to her civil status upon marrying Harry.

A former marriage is also deeply personal and again, holds no relevance to her current life. It's hardly comparable to a mention of her parents, whom she still has a relationship with. Nor is it comparable to her charity work or acting career. That is her professional life that at least has some relevance to her role now as a public figure. Marriage may have been the most important commitment she made but that doesn't mean it deserves a mention in this case.

 

[MARG]

It may have been the most important commitment she made but it was also the most important mistake she made. We don't know what went wrong but we do know divorce was the end result of a relationship that lasted the best part of 10 years.

Is she condemned to be known as 'Megan Sussex, nee Markle, ex Mrs . . . for the rest of her life?