The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[Osipi]

Marriage changes things. Life happens. People that were once close aren't anymore. This becomes apparent the older a person gets. I've surely had it happen many times in my life.

[_Heather_]

Speaking as someone who had to cut off some incredibly toxic family members, including my father, I feel like I’m in a unique position to speak about some of this. No one, other than those individuals directly involved, know exactly what occurred to cause the rift between Meghan and her father. That includes any friends she may have told, her sister, and even Harry. That said, Meghan has a well-established pattern of cutting people off and out of her life and it very much appears that both she and Harry are following that pattern. And as someone who has been in a somewhat similar position, I just feel the need to point out that this is an incredibly easy but incredibly dangerous pattern to fall into. I know because I’ve occasionally had to catch myself and remind myself that while some things warrant a drastic action like cutting someone off, not everything does or should and mentally healthy people and relationships have to work through disagreements, struggles, and differences of opinion. Using the cutting off line of defense on the regular isn’t healthy but it is an easy place to go for a lot of reasons, the vast majority of which involve protecting your own heart and mental health in unhealthy ways. I guess what I’m trying to say is, this appears to be a pattern for her and an action that she’s employed repeatedly. Combining that with someone like Harry who has made no secret of the fact that he’s somewhat suspicious and distrustful along with damaged, resentful, and angry can really cause a volcanic reaction. It’s not at all hard to see, from my perspective anyway, why they very much appear to have isolated themselves from not only both families but old friends. It’s incredibly sad and really damaging mentally and emotionally but it’s not hard to understand.

[QueenMathilde]

Meghan and Harry not as popular in the US as press suggests

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...pular-23818771

[Osipi]

I don't have to click on the link to agree with the headline. Although people in the US are familiar with the names Harry and Meghan, they're not exactly household names here nor even close to being top tier "famous". They, IMO, join the ranks of a heck of a lot of people out there that in order to be a success in anything they do, have to actively work to keep their names in the limelight and in the attention span of the US public.

If they're seen at all in the near future, it will be cropping up on entertainment pages and celebrity news and the tabloids at the supermarket checkout lines. They've gone actually from being a unique couple to being another face in the crowd. The interview they did with Oprah did garner them some hot and heavy traffic but that, to me, was equal to 15 minutes of fame and then forgotten about. The American public has a short attention span and there's always something brand new and shiny that comes along to capture their interest.

[AC21091968]

In regards to Harry & Meghan's popularity in the US, apologies if posted before, there were several YouGov polls conducted in America on the British Royal Family and Monarchy not just the Sussexes. The surveys were conducted between 13th and 17th March with collaboration with The Economist. Whilst Harry & Meghan's favourability was not so abysmal compared to the UK, their popularity has decreased compared to 2020.

Meghan and Harry’s favorability ratings take a hit, although they are still popular overall
https://today.yougov.com/topics/poli...orability-poll

PDF of the full results with the vote breakdowns (which also contains other surveys not related to the royal family). Unlike the British YouGov, it does not have the total positive/support or negative/oppose, which made the tables harder to read:
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/bajzsg35...nTabReport.pdf

[AC21091968]

The Archbishop of Canterbury (AoC), Justin Welby did an interview with la Repubblica (Italian daily newspaper) on Harry & Meghan's wedding's date saga. He said that the legal wedding was on Saturday by signing the wedding certificate and would have committed a criminal offence if the wedding certificate was known to be false. He did have some private meetings with Harry & Meghan before the wedding.

Justin Welby: "What I learnt from Covid, the threat of cancel culture and the truth on Harry & Meghan’s wedding"
An exclusive interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the lessons of the pandemic, the “enormous danger” of vaccine nationalism, the concerns on Northern Ireland, Mohammad’s cartoons and freedom of speech, racism and asylum seekers in the UK, Pope Francis and the vision EU and Britain are missing
https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/202...ng_-294433010/

The article is behind a paywall, but Chris Ship has tweeted out some snippets.

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
NEW: From @JustinWelby on whether he DID or DIDN’T marry Meghan and Harry *before the Royal Wedding on Saturday 19 May 2018.
He told @antoguerrera from Italy’s @repubblica that “the legal wedding was on the Saturday. I signed the wedding certificate”.
https://repubblica.it/esteri/2021/03...ng_-294433010/
7:19 AM · Mar 31, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Archbishop of Canterbury also told @antoguerrera he “would have committed a serious criminal offences” if he’d signed Harry & Meghan’s wedding certificate “knowing it was false”.
But he had “a number of private and pastoral meetings with the Duke and Duchess before the wedding”.
7:19 AM · Mar 31, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...92605905551363

Screenshot of the la Repubblica article that included the AoC talking about Harry & Meghan's wedding
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExwPeSEW...jpg&name=large

Picture of Harry & Meghan's wedding certificate (from The Sun who bought a copy from the General Register Office): https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...9103.jpg?w=620

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

The Archbishop of Canterbury (AoC), Justin Welby did an interview with la Repubblica (Italian daily newspaper) on Harry & Meghan's wedding's date saga.

Justin Welby: "What I learnt from Covid, the threat of cancel culture and the truth on Harry & Meghan’s wedding"
An exclusive interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the lessons of the pandemic, the “enormous danger” of vaccine nationalism, the concerns on Northern Ireland, Mohammad’s cartoons and freedom of speech, racism and asylum seekers in the UK, Pope Francis and the vision EU and Britain are missing
https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/202...ng_-294433010/

The article is behind a paywall, but Chris Ship has tweeted out some snippets.

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
NEW: From @JustinWelby on whether he DID or DIDN’T marry Meghan and Harry *before the Royal Wedding on Saturday 19 May 2018.
He told @antoguerrera from Italy’s @repubblica that “the legal wedding was on the Saturday. I signed the wedding certificate”.
https://repubblica.it/esteri/2021/03...ng_-294433010/
7:19 AM · Mar 31, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Archbishop of Canterbury also told @antoguerrera he “would have committed a serious criminal offences” if he’d signed Harry & Meghan’s wedding certificate “knowing it was false”.
But he had “a number of private and pastoral meetings with the Duke and Duchess before the wedding”.
7:19 AM · Mar 31, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...92605905551363

Screenshot of the la Repubblica article that included the AoC talking about Harry & Meghan's wedding
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExwPeSEW...jpg&name=large

I think that's pretty much what we already knew from the certificate and what everyone else, including Harry and Meghan's spokesperson has already said, looking at the screen shot. They had the legal wedding when we saw it and he would be in trouble if he had married them religiously without witnesses before that but signed it for 3 days later.

They did say some vows in the garden that were personal ones not CofE ones but he's not going to talk about that because it's private and he doesn't want to be drawn into this, especially during Holy Week.

I still don't understand why she even brought it up when it was so easily disprovable or didn't classify it as a "commitment ceremony that was our intimate vows" rather than flat out state "we got married".
I suppose there are those two could make trouble for him if

[Somebody]

It seems the AoC could all have easily avoided all of this by not presiding over a 'personal semi-marriage ceremony' a few days prior.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It seems the AoC could all have easily avoided all of this by not presiding over a 'personal semi-marriage ceremony' a few days prior.

It wasn't a "semi marriage ceremony" becuase there is no such thing. He probalby was far from happy at being asked to turn up for this but what was he supposed to do? Be rude to them? tell them it was a waste of his time and theirs and that he wasn't going to turn up for it?

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It seems the AoC could all have easily avoided all of this by not presiding over a 'personal semi-marriage ceremony' a few days prior.

Well yes, and vicars are still getting requests to do that because of lockdown and haven't been able to fulfil that for most people.

But he certainly didn't expect that his "pastoral meetings" would end up splashed all over the globe as part of a messy divorce from the BRF. Especially for a couple who wanted whatever exactly happened to be a private moment!

He was keen to emphasis that he didn't do anything illegal or against church law so it wasn't the official CofE rite but his presence made the whole thing an issue in the first place. If Meghan had wanted to tell the American audience that she's regular girl who hated the "spectacle" (and didn't care about the British taxpayer who paid for it presumably) she didn't need to mention him at all.

Again again Marriage and personal vows are two very different things, even if the latter is more special to you.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It seems the AoC could all have easily avoided all of this by not presiding over a 'personal semi-marriage ceremony' a few days prior.

I’ll leave responsibility for this on Harry and Meghan for publicly saying that they got married 3 days earlier when they did not legally do so.

That would have avoided all of this.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Erin9

I’ll leave responsibility for this on Harry and Meghan for publicly saying that got married 3 days earlier when they did not legally do so.

That would have avoided all of this.

Agreed. But honestly, when have Harry and Meghan taken responsibility for any of the messes they’ve caused and/or found themselves at the center of? While I agree with you completely, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

[Alison H]

I assume he was just trying to be nice. I've known religious ministers be asked to bless pets and even children's dolls, to make people happy. It's quite possible that he was there for a pre-arranged meeting to go over the arrangements, and they mentioned this garden vows thing whilst he was there. This is the thanks he gets for trying to be nice!

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Alison H

I assume he was just trying to be nice. I've known religious ministers be asked to bless pets and even children's dolls, to make people happy. It's quite possible that he was there for a pre-arranged meeting to go over the arrangements, and they mentioned this garden vows thing whilst he was there. This is the thanks he gets for trying to be nice!

I still can't, for the life of me, figure out why Meghan even mentioned it in the first place. It was supposedly something "special" between the two and them and had meaning even if it wasn't really a "marriage ceremony". Perhaps she was thinking that she'd let a little bit of light into the "mystery" of the two of them? Perhaps it was believing that an American audience would believe anything? Perhaps it was a dig at the UK that they just went through a very expensive wedding day "for the world" and not really for them and something she had to "endure"? I don't, however, think she intended to throw the ABC under the bus although that's the biggie that came out of it all.

Something has come to mind for me of what I'm not seeing in this couple that purport to go into the future with "kindness and compassion" as part of their brand. Most people that really do have a mission to make a difference have a quality about them that is sorely missing these days from the Sussexes. Humility. I think this hit home to me because I ran across an article that really shows how Harry's new "mental health" job is a far cry from his previous work with things like Heads Together and other mental health incentives in society. The aims now seem to be to jump on a bandwagon for profit. To me, that's not "giving back" with "kindness and compassion". It's cases of "what's in it for me?"

https://newrepublic.com/article/1618...-mental-health

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

Agreed. But honestly, when have Harry and Meghan taken responsibility for any of the messes they’ve caused and/or found themselves at the center of? While I agree with you completely, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Oh- IA. I don’t expect them to actually take responsibility for anything either. I haven’t seen it happen yet. According to them- nothing seems to ever be their fault. It’s all someone else’s.

I’m just not holding the AOC responsible for any of this either. This is all on Harry and Meghan IMO- regardless of whether they acknowledge it.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I still can't, for the life of me, figure out why Meghan even mentioned it in the first place. It was supposedly something "special" between the two and them and had meaning even if it wasn't really a "marriage ceremony". Perhaps she was thinking that she'd let a little bit of light into the "mystery" of the two of them? Perhaps it was believing that an American audience would believe anything? Perhaps it was a dig at the UK that they just went through a very expensive wedding day "for the world" and not really for them and something she had to "endure"? I don't, however, think she intended to throw the ABC under the bus although that's the biggie that came out of it all.

I know! If it was so special to them, why on earth mention it?

Something has come to mind for me of what I'm not seeing in this couple that purport to go into the future with "kindness and compassion" as part of their brand. Most people that really do have a mission to make a difference have a quality about them that is sorely missing these days from the Sussexes. Humility. I think this hit home to me because I ran across an article that really shows how Harry's new "mental health" job is a far cry from his previous work with things like Heads Together and other mental health incentives in society. The aims now seem to be to jump on a bandwagon for profit. To me, that's not "giving back" with "kindness and compassion". It's cases of "what's in it for me?"

https://newrepublic.com/article/1618...-mental-health

I suspect that Harry did not contemplate that he would be cut off financially. I think he expected to be able to be a part-time royal, with enough funding from the royal bank to pay his living expenses at a royal level. I imagine he still thinks of himself as royal, and probably always will, and I say that because I think I would probably feel the same way in his shoes, with his background and the way he was brought up in the highest royal circles. He has not had the education and constitutional training that his brother has had all his life that sets those in the chain of heirs apart from the rest of the members of their family, and he is not perceptive enough to have worked it all out for himself. I imagine that to Harry being royal is an unseverable part of his essence. And now he faces a life he had never contemplated and it's going to take him some time to adjust. And in the meantime he has to plan a life that includes earning a living to support himself and his family in the manner to which he is accustomed and wishes to remain accustomed. So the sort of "work" he previously envisaged will no longer do; he has to do work that will pay him an income he can keep, and a sizeable one at that, so all his decisions have to involve asking what's in it for him. He has to work out how he can still "give back" within this new framework, and it is likely to take a while for him to process it all and arrive at a satisfactory new reality.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It seems the AoC could all have easily avoided all of this by not presiding over a 'personal semi-marriage ceremony' a few days prior.

I do not believe the Archbishop of Canterbury did preside over a 'personal semi-marriage ceremony', and nor has there been a confirmation of any form from the Arcbishop suggesting so.

Wilst I belive the whole Oprah interview was unfortunate and one that, in time, H&M will probably come to regret, the pointless white lie will about getting marrid 3 days before the ceremony will go some distance in discrediting Meghan's narrative.

Originally Posted by Osipi

I still can't, for the life of me, figure out why Meghan even mentioned it in the first place. It was supposedly something "special" between the two and them and had meaning even if it wasn't really a "marriage ceremony". Perhaps she was thinking that she'd let a little bit of light into the "mystery" of the two of them? Perhaps it was believing that an American audience would believe anything? Perhaps it was a dig at the UK that they just went through a very expensive wedding day "for the world" and not really for them and something she had to "endure"? I don't, however, think she intended to throw the ABC under the bus although that's the biggie that came out of it all.

Something has come to mind for me of what I'm not seeing in this couple that purport to go into the future with "kindness and compassion" as part of their brand. Most people that really do have a mission to make a difference have a quality about them that is sorely missing these days from the Sussexes. Humility. I think this hit home to me because I ran across an article that really shows how Harry's new "mental health" job is a far cry from his previous work with things like Heads Together and other mental health incentives in society. The aims now seem to be to jump on a bandwagon for profit. To me, that's not "giving back" with "kindness and compassion". It's cases of "what's in it for me?"

https://newrepublic.com/article/1618...-mental-health

I think this was them attempting to make good television and provide titbits of information that will make the programme more memorable for viewer.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Perhaps she was thinking that she'd let a little bit of light into the "mystery" of the two of them? Perhaps it was believing that an American audience would believe anything? [/url]

I think you may be right on all fronts.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I suspect that Harry did not contemplate that he would be cut off financially. I think he expected to be able to be a part-time royal, with enough funding from the royal bank to pay his living expenses at a royal level.

Yes, and this is despite the fact that he inherited millions from Diana, both from her divorce settlement and from the money she herself inherited from her wealthy grandmother, and possibly inherited money from the Queen Mother too.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Yes, and this is despite the fact that he inherited millions from Diana, both from her divorce settlement and from the money she herself inherited from her wealthy grandmother, and possibly inherited money from the Queen Mother too.

I didn't say his expectation was reasonable.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I suspect that Harry did not contemplate that he would be cut off financially. I think he expected to be able to be a part-time royal, with enough funding from the royal bank to pay his living expenses at a royal level.

Common sense might suggest you agree the terms you are planning to leave the BRF with, prior to anouncing it to the world and putting your list of demands on a website. I see no reason wy charles would fund Harry, given that Harry has plenty of money that he has inherited.