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

[Heavs]

That's why I think the Archbishop of Canterbury should just make a statement. Because right now we have Meghan's comments that they were married, some weird explanation from Lambeth Palace that doesn't really make sense and the wedding certificate dating 19th of May, 2018. What is funny to me, they just offered the press a golden egg - whenever things get boring, they could write long articles "is Meghan and Harry's marriage valid", based on the information they provided

That's why I was really surprised they said anything. The press can now write articles with a few quotes from vicars who are still discussing this on SM and go to town and cause more controversy. I guess she just wasn't thinking.

The "real marriage" to Meghan and Harry he allegedly conducted in the garden wasn't valid because there were no witnesses and it probably wasn't under a standing structure like The Orangery. That's illegal but they said vows in the the sight of God and he declared them married so:

B) You can't fake your vows again 3 days later with your fingers crossed behind your back and have witnesses attest to those "play acting vows".

Ecclesiastically speaking it's potentially a huge mess for Justin Welby (big time) and even legally speaking there's enough to write a few articles as you say.

The reason there needs to be two witnesses and the chance to object (which is why it needs to be technically publicly accessible) and usually banns is to eliminate the issue of secret or fake or invalid marriages because of so many problems in the past.

Think about all the times in royal history there have been claims of secret marriages.

I think Lambeth Palace might be forced to further clear things up although maybe they'll just say the marriage certificate speaks for itself and dodge anything else.

Of course it is more proof Meghan didn't exactly speak precisely and factually during the interview but that's not even the larger point here. For me anyway.

The thing is, even if it wasn't potentially problematic from a CofE perspective saying "we just wanted a small wedding" is guaranteed to piss off taxpayers reeling from financial crises caused by the pandemic. So whilst I can see her trying to cast herself as someone who didn't care about the pomp and circumstance (after complaining about money and titles!) it also comes off as a middle finger in many ways.

 

[Queen Ester]

Hallo girl

The more I think about it the more I think that Oprah and Gayle have set the couple up, once or twice there were the false gasps from Oprah other times it was ' really'. She did not question anything took everything as their truth , even the marriage she did not question. Why not say was that legal, giving them the opportunity to clarify marriage /blessing

Well, if Meghan feels that they were set up she should make a statement now and clear up all misunderstandings.

 

[Mirabel]

We all know this is a question of educational background very much,
it is surely a special group of people watching Oprah or trash tv, this is the same maybe in every country. But H&M try to gain money for their foundation, those people watching&believing the interview are surely not those who will or can donate much money to them. So what is the idea behind the interview, beside revenge, mental sickness...?
Do they want to create a base of potential viewers for the coming netflix stuff?

I suspect it was simply a ploy to get more funds from the BRF.
"See? We can damage your reputation with a word! Give us money or there'll be more of this!"

I think that is the reason it was said recent talks post-interview were "unproductive;" The BRF didn't give in.

 

[Queen Ester]

I fully and completely agree with you. However, I also really believe this is just another instance of Meghan not understanding, not realizing, and not even really caring that by throwing out what she considers a little personal tidbit to make them look personable and oh so down to earth, she totally threw the AoC under the bus. I honestly think she believed she was just “giving the people the personal tidbit they wanted” and probably didn’t even realize just how bad this made the AoC look or how much it called him and his position into question.

I hate to even think that maybe this was Meghan's plan all along, offend as many people as she can in the hopes that one of them will start making comments, requiring that Meghan comment in return, thereby containing to keep them in the news

After all these new lies, bad behaviour, acting, stupidity, immaturity again!,
I do ask myself how anybody can still think positive about them, believe anything they say, write or air somehow using friends....

Seriously, can someone explain how this works in the US, are their polls about this?
Thank you.

We all know this is a question of educational background very much,
it is surely a special group of people watching Oprah or trash tv, this is the same maybe in every country. But H&M try to gain money for their foundation, those people watching&believing the interview are surely not those who will or can donate much money to them. So what is the idea behind the interview, beside revenge, mental sickness...?
Do they want to create a base of potential viewers for the coming netflix stuff?

I am not much into the US society, maybe someone can ry to explain?
Though I do not consider those two being very bright, after all the negative effects their actions had in the past, one should think they hired some advisors since, but what on earth did those intend with the interview?

Thanks!

And I, too, do believe that bringing an archbishop in such a situation is even worse than anything they did before or can do in the future. They seem to feel really no limits at all.
Unfortunately too little people are still close to church that this would bring them up against the couple.
But surely anybody with a rest if brain will distance themselves from the couple, one never knows what is next. I hope noone gives them a single dime!

I have not seen any polls, and the couple is not in the news at all, apart from shows like Gayle's or Entertainment Tonight. I have seen a member of the clergy commenting on the marriage in the garden, and saying it just could not happen.
Perhaps, there are whispers in Hollywood, but not among the general public.

 

[Fem]

That's why I was really surprised they said anything. The press can now write articles with a few quotes from vicars who are still discussing this on SM and go to town and cause more controversy. I guess she just wasn't thinking.

The "real marriage" to Meghan and Harry he allegedly conducted in the garden wasn't valid because there were no witnesses and it probably wasn't under a standing structure like The Orangery. That's illegal but they said vows in the the sight of God and he declared them married so:

B) You can't fake your vows again 3 days later with your fingers crossed behind your back and have witnesses attest to those "play acting vows".

Ecclesiastically speaking it's potentially a huge mess for Justin Welby (big time) and even legally speaking there's enough to write a few articles as you say.

The reason there needs to be two witnesses and the chance to object (which is why it needs to be technically publicly accessible) and usually banns is to eliminate the issue of secret or fake or invalid marriages because of so many problems in the past.

Think about all the times in royal history there have been claims of secret marriages.

I think Lambeth Palace might be forced to further clear things up although maybe they'll just say the marriage certificate speaks for itself and dodge anything else.

Of course it is more proof Meghan didn't exactly speak precisely and factually during the interview but that's not even the larger point here. For me anyway.

The thing is, even if it wasn't potentially problematic from a CofE perspective saying "we just wanted a small wedding" is guaranteed to piss off taxpayers reeling from financial crises caused by the pandemic. So whilst I can see her trying to cast herself as someone who didn't care about the pomp and circumstance (after complaining about money and titles!) it also comes off as a middle finger in many ways.

While Piers Morgan went off in a completely disgraceful manner, I can agree with him on one thing - how can we even believe one word spoken by Meghan, when all it seems very vague and confusing and straight up lying?

I really think Lambeth Palace or Archbishop himself should just release one statement, clarify the issue and put it to rest. I mean, yes, the marriage certificate speaks volumes, but to end all discussion they should come forward.

And yes, that's the second big issue. If they wanted a small ceremony, they could've gone the Beatrice route. And not now, after a wedding which costed the public millions, say it was fake and they didn't care about it. I think a lot of us can remember that day in Windsor - the weather was great, people showed up in numbers, just to share the excitement of the day and atmosphere was wonderful - maybe not as much as during William and Catherine wedding, but who can blame us, it was bank holiday!

 

[Osipi]

I think the big question now is where do they go from here? What are their plans and how do they implement them?

To be honest, I'm really sort of surprised that Archewell hasn't launched more completely than it has. When I think of how fast SussexRoyal came up and generated output on Instagram, I'm wondering why Archewell hasn't been updated more often than it has.

 

[Denville]

While Piers Morgan went off in a completely disgraceful manner, I can agree with him on one thing - how can we even believe one word spoken by Meghan, when all it seems very vague and confusing and straight up lying?

I really think Lambeth Palace or Archbishop himself should just release one statement, clarify the issue and put it to rest. I mean, yes, the marriage certificate speaks volumes, but to end all discussion they should come forward.

And yes, that's the second big issue. If they wanted a small ceremony, they could've gone the Beatrice route. And not now, after a wedding which costed the public millions, say it was fake and they didn't care about it. I think a lot of us can remember that day in Windsor - the weather was great, people showed up in numbers, just to share the excitement of the day and atmosphere was wonderful - maybe not as much as during William and Catherine wedding, but who can blame us, it was bank holiday!

do you really think that they DIDNT want a big fancy wedding? Of course they did. They needed the big fancy wedding to make them known to the public esp in the US..A quiet small wedding with a few family and friends and no photos would not do that.

I think the big question now is where do they go from here? What are their plans and how do they implement them?

To be honest, I'm really sort of surprised that Archewell hasn't launched more completely than it has. When I think of how fast SussexRoyal came up and generated output on Instagram, I'm wondering why Archewell hasn't been updated more often than it has.

I dont think they have plans per se.. other than they now know they have to make money, as Charles is NOT playng ball and coughing up. Perhaps thye thought that the interview would have him rushing across the Atlantic with a chequebook... but it hasn't.. so they have to produce something for Netflix.. or do more interviews for which they are paid, to get public notice and sympathy...

 

[Queen Ester]

I dont think they have plans per se.. other than they now know they have to make money, as Charles is NOT playng ball and coughing up. Perhaps thye thought that the interview would have him rushing across the Atlantic with a chequebook... but it hasn't.. so they have to produce something for Netflix.. or do more interviews for which they are paid, to get public notice and sympathy...

It will be interesting to see what they produce, I hope it's not another whine-fest.

 

[Fem]

do you really think that they DIDNT want a big fancy wedding? Of course they did. They needed the big fancy wedding to make them known to the public esp in the US..A quiet small wedding with a few family and friends and no photos would not do that.

Of course they wanted the big fancy wedding. It's an ascension or introduction of sorts - on a global stage - to the royal family. They needed it for the status. But as far as just the marriage is concerned, then yes, I think they would be happy with a smaller ceremony.

 

[cathy50]

I suspect it was simply a ploy to get more funds from the BRF.
"See? We can damage your reputation with a word! Give us money or there'll be more of this!"

I think that is the reason it was said recent talks post-interview were "unproductive;" The BRF didn't give in.

Thank you. This seems to make sense in both ways , because I cannot see any logical strategy behind the idea of having produced this interview for the US market only, like many wrote here aswell.
But who knows?
Let's hope Harry does not know much about taboo-stories of his family or does not tell his wife about it, so she can leak more to the press.

I wonder what Thomas Markle is going to tell after the 30 days . She is considering this point really her Dad's daughter. And her sis will soon be back aswell, I suppose. A Markle Drama for the world.

Harry will be falling very very deep once this marriage finds its end and as they cannot be happy when focussing so much on the past and them being victims....
so sorry for the children. what shall those two ever become?

 

[_Heather_]

So it appears that their little lap dog Scobie has now stated that "if we are seeing a resistance from the Palace towards addressing the issues". He added: "This tactic may not go away for some time.”

Nice. So they now have their mouthpiece continuing to make explicit threats of what amounts to blackmail and extortion.

 

[cathy50]

I have not seen any polls, and the couple is not in the news at all, apart from shows like Gayle's or Entertainment Tonight. I have seen a member of the clergy commenting on the marriage in the garden, and saying it just could not happen.
Perhaps, there are whispers in Hollywood, but not among the general public.

Thank you.

Well, about the clergy thing. I can assure everybody that a priest in Welby's position would not leave things unclear or make an exception, because he simply cannot and is aware of it.
She is ruthless or really stupid to put the bishop in such a situation by telling the world in an interview.
Explaining another if M's lies with " well, she is amercian, she was new, she didn't know", c'on everybody knows this essentials about the need of witnesses for a wedding...., aswell as the national anthem, or who Diana was.....
Meghan proofs herself being a liar again and again plus she is a really bad actress when trying to act as if she wasn't acting.... LOL
there is a deeper truth in saying
when you start with a single "small" lie things will be getting bigger and more complicated and soon unsolvable (sorry, my english is not so good, hope you understand what I try to say).

I agree very much with the poster who said it's like showing the finger to the british people when declaring the wedding was fake and they did not care about it. 1. she wanted the bis thing and all the attention
2. the taxpayer paid for it.
3. if this was not important and only fake for the public, well what about this whole royal work, is it all a joke, just fake, just waving to the stupid people who adore them?
4 archwell speaks of compassion, well the two have proofed to have none of it not even with their closest folks.
5. charles is the bad guy, since when? when he walked her down the church or since he stopped paying for the nearly 40 years olds?
6.she was a very lonely person and by now her husband is aswell, maybe the only true thing meghan siad was when she said 'they had lost a lot since', Harry certainly has.

 

[Somebody]

Thank you.

Well, about the clergy thing. I can assure everybody that a priest in Welby's position would not leave things unclear or make an exception, because he simply cannot and is aware of it.
She is ruthless or really stupid to put the bishop in such a situation by telling the world in an interview.
Explaining another if m's lies with " well, she is amercian, she was new, she didn't know", c'on everybody knows this essentials anout the need if witnesses for a wedding...., aswell as the national anthem, or who Diana was.....
Meghan proofs herself being a liar again and again plus she is a really bad actress when trying to act as if she wasn't acting.... LOL
there is a deeper truth in saying
when you start with a single "small" lie things will be getting bigger and more complicated and soon unsolvable (sorry, my english is not so good, hope you understand what I try to say).

I agree very much with the poster who said it's like showing the finger to the british people when declaring the wedding was fake and they did not care about it. 1. she wanted the bis thing and all the attention
2. the taxpayer paid for it.
3. if this was not important and only fake for the public, well what about this whole royal work, is it all a joke, just fake, just waving to the stupid people who adore them?
4 archwell speaks of compassion, well the two have proofed to have none of it not even with their closest folks.
5. charles is the bad guy, since when? when he walked her down the church or since he stopped paying for the nearly 40 years olds?
6.she was a very lonely person and by now her husband is aswell, maybe the only true thing meghan siad was when she said 'they had lost a lot since', Harry certainly has.

Loosing sounds a bit of them not having an active part in it. They chose other things over what they 'lost'.

 

[Claire]

Quick question for the legal (royal legal) among you.

1. When Charles becomes King is the Duchy of Cornwall divided 50/50 among Harry and William ?
2. if not can Harry sue for 50 % of the estate?
3. if the titles and honifics are removed can Harry take the royal family to court to get them back?

 

[fabaunty]

Income from the Duchy of Cornwall is specifically , and only for the use of the 1st in line to the throne . It cannot be split up between William and Harry . Harry may well inherit money from his grandparents , and in time his Father , but he has no other claims .
The titles can only be removed by an Act of Parliament.

 

[Claire]

Thank you.

Well, about the clergy thing. I can assure everybody that a priest in Welby's position would not leave things unclear or make an exception, because he simply cannot and is aware of it.
She is ruthless or really stupid to put the bishop in such a situation by telling the world in an interview.
Explaining another if M's lies with " well, she is amercian, she was new, she didn't know", c'on everybody knows this essentials about the need of witnesses for a wedding...., aswell as the national anthem, or who Diana was.....
Meghan proofs herself being a liar again and again plus she is a really bad actress when trying to act as if she wasn't acting.... LOL
there is a deeper truth in saying
when you start with a single "small" lie things will be getting bigger and more complicated and soon unsolvable (sorry, my english is not so good, hope you understand what I try to say).

I agree very much with the poster who said it's like showing the finger to the british people when declaring the wedding was fake and they did not care about it. 1. she wanted the bis thing and all the attention
2. the taxpayer paid for it.
3. if this was not important and only fake for the public, well what about this whole royal work, is it all a joke, just fake, just waving to the stupid people who adore them?
4 archwell speaks of compassion, well the two have proofed to have none of it not even with their closest folks.
5. charles is the bad guy, since when? when he walked her down the church or since he stopped paying for the nearly 40 years olds?
6.she was a very lonely person and by now her husband is aswell, maybe the only true thing meghan siad was when she said 'they had lost a lot since', Harry certainly has.

okay - you have to look at this broader. Which is why I would like to see the conversation and the question that lead to the admission.
MH were adamant that to let the public know they did not owe the anything. The didn't owe them photos or information. The press response to this was - we paid for your wedding and house. So they have paid back the house, which leaves the wedding. Meghan's response - it wasn't our wedding we got married 3 days before that was a party the public had for themselves, it was in no way done for our benefit as we were already married. It was all for public appreciation. Therefore we owe you nothing response as you gave us nothing.

 

[Alison H]

No, the Duchy of Cornwall is not divided - it goes to the eldest son of the monarch. That's how these things work. Imagine if Charles had 15 children, like George III did - you'd have to split it 15 ways .

 

[Claire]

No, the Duchy of Cornwall is not divided - it goes to the eldest son of the monarch. That's how these things work. Imagine if Charles had 15 children, like George III did - you'd have to split it 15 ways .

Are we certain we havent overlooked a precedent or new law?

 

[UglyAmerican]

So it appears that their little lap dog Scobie has now stated that "if we are seeing a resistance from the Palace towards addressing the issues". He added: "This tactic may not go away for some time.”

Nice. So they now have their mouthpiece continuing to make explicit threats of what amounts to blackmail and extortion.

So now they're going to do exactly what Meghan's father is doing: threaten to keep blabbing about their relatives until those relatives talk to them in a manner that they deem "productive." Which those relatives are probably never going to do, because they know anything they say is likely to end up distorted beyond recognition and then broadcast to the entire world via Gayle, Janina, Omid, or Meghan herself. At this point, I suspect they think "productive" means "accepting of all blame and willing to fork out millions to assuage their hurt feelings." By Meghan's own standards, the rest of Harry's family would be entirely within their rights to disown them at this point, but I doubt H&M will see it that way.

What is it they think there is to address at this point, anyway? Let's be very generous and suppose everything they claim happened exactly the way they said it happened. So what? They no longer work there, live there, or have anything to do with any of these people. Should the palace replace a bunch of staff because someone who no longer works there dislikes them? If the palace makes Princess Michael go to sensitivity training, will that make Meghan want to be her best friend? When you quit a job, you no longer get a vote in how those still there choose to run things.

 

[Denville]

Are we certain we havent overlooked a precedent or new law?

There is no way harry has any claim on the Duchy of Cornwal. he's not the eldest son....

 

[Denville]

So now they're going to do exactly what Meghan's father is doing: threaten to keep blabbing about their relatives until t.

What is it they think there is to address at this point, anyway? Let's be very generous and suppose everything they claim happened exactly the way they said it happened. So what? They no longer work there, live there, or have anything to do with any of these people. Should the palace replace a bunch of staff because someone who no longer works there dislikes them? If the palace makes Princess Michael go to sensitivity training, will that make Meghan want to be her best friend? When you quit a job, you no longer get a vote in how those still there choose to run things.

well even if it was all true, and the RF did sack all their staff and replace them with new "sensitivity trained" people.. and lecture all the royals so t hat they know how to behave....what would it matter to Meghan? She's gone.. it wont do her any good or any harm...

 

[Somebody]

Are we certain we havent overlooked a precedent or new law?

If you can share one, please do so but just throwing out suspicions doesn't seem helpful. The Duchy is not tied to Charles personally but to the position of the heir to the throne. So, 'normal' inheritance laws wouldn't apply as this is not about inheritance.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Are the formal entails that form the backbone of most Austen novels still used?

 

[RandyDrx]

So now they're going to do exactly what Meghan's father is doing: threaten to keep blabbing about their relatives until those relatives talk to them in a manner that they deem "productive." Which those relatives are probably never going to do, because they know anything they say is likely to end up distorted beyond recognition and then broadcast to the entire world via Gayle, Janina, Omid, or Meghan herself. At this point, I suspect they think "productive" means "accepting of all blame and willing to fork out millions to assuage their hurt feelings." By Meghan's own standards, the rest of Harry's family would be entirely within their rights to disown them at this point, but I doubt H&M will see it that way.

What is it they think there is to address at this point, anyway? Let's be very generous and suppose everything they claim happened exactly the way they said it happened. So what? They no longer work there, live there, or have anything to do with any of these people. Should the palace replace a bunch of staff because someone who no longer works there dislikes them? If the palace makes Princess Michael go to sensitivity training, will that make Meghan want to be her best friend? When you quit a job, you no longer get a vote in how those still there choose to run things.

Meghan really is her father's daughter, and considering that she ghosted her own father for that stunt, it's only fair for the BRF to ghost H&M back.

 

[Denville]

Are the formal entails that form the backbone of most Austen novels still used?

no, not really...

 

[BriarRose]

Quick question for the legal (royal legal) among you.

1. When Charles becomes King is the Duchy of Cornwall divided 50/50 among Harry and William ?
2. if not can Harry sue for 50 % of the estate?
3. if the titles and honifics are removed can Harry take the royal family to court to get them back?

1. There is no duchy/estate for anyone other than the Monarch and the Prince of Wales* Anne, Andrew & Edward are in the same position as Harry.

2. No. He has no legal right to the Duchy of Cornwall. Neither does William until Charles ascends to the throne.

3. If the Dukedom is removed it would be by Parliament, (though the Queen can remove HRH through Letters Patent). The last time we saw peerages removed was for German royals during World War I. For the Dukedom, suing the Monarch would not be successful. I'm not aware of any precedence from suing the Monarch regarding Letters Patent, and in my personal opinion, the courts would have to back the Monarch as long as all laws and rules were followed.

* I believe the Duchy of Cornwall will now automatically go to the heir apparent, regardless of whether that person has been made the Prince of Wales, or can be the Duke of Cornwall. For example, my understanding is that if the 1st in line to the throne was a woman, she would still automatically receive the Duchy, even though she can't be the Duke of Cornwall or the Prince of Wales under current peerage rules. This is because now woman can be the heir apparent, whereas before they could not (Elizabeth II was never the heir apparent.) Also, William will not automatically become the Prince of Wales, he will have to wait until he is invested with the title by his father the King.

 

[Heavs]

When Charles's time comes there's no such thing as the Napoleonic Code that there is in some continental countries, no one is obliged to leave their kids an equal amount of their assets and that's before you get to things that aren't technically governed by inheritance laws. The Duchy isn't passed on after death. Technically. And we've yet to see a 2nd son sue his older brother for inheriting the title and estate. Co-Dukes.

So it appears that their little lap dog Scobie has now stated that "if we are seeing a resistance from the Palace towards addressing the issues". He added: "This tactic may not go away for some time.”

What issues? I mean what good would it do anyone including Harry and Meghan to discuss what Charles and William may or may not remember about her mental health for example in public? So the palace produces an email saying Meghan was advised not to go to Celebrity Health Spa but was offered Top Harley Street Guy instead? What then? Gayle King refutes that.

Should William and Charles sit down with Dimbleby or Trevor McDonald to discuss how titles work and how they aren't racist? We've seen all too well how that goes.

If they can't even have a personal phone call without leaking it to the world I don't see what a public discussion will do.

Scobie's bitter he's not got as much to chew on as he'd hoped so far.

 

[Fem]

Quick question for the legal (royal legal) among you.

1. When Charles becomes King is the Duchy of Cornwall divided 50/50 among Harry and William ?
2. if not can Harry sue for 50 % of the estate?
3. if the titles and honifics are removed can Harry take the royal family to court to get them back?
4. If other wills are not to Harry and Meghan's liking - ie. Prince Philips and HM the Queen's - can they have their wills pulled and the trusts split evenly under the law. Essentially does inheritance law in the UK allow for this to supersede the request of the deceased.

1. No, the Duchy of Cornwall is not Charles' property. It serves as a mean to give Prince of Wales and his family an income - so it jumps from the last Prince of Wales to the next one. William will get 100%.

2. No, because the Duchy of Cornwall is not Charles' property. Imagine this scenario: Harry gets 50%, William 50%. Then William's 50% gets divided into 33% for George, Charlotte and Louis. After a few generations there would be nothing left. The income of Duchy of Cornwall belongs to the Duke of Cornwall, and that title will be inherited by William and then George.

3. If the titles and honorifcs are to be removed, Harry would have to sue the Parliament, as they would be the ones removing them (I'd actually pay to watch that, TBH)

 

[Claire]

If you can share one, please do so but just throwing out suspicions doesn't seem helpful. The Duchy is not tied to Charles personally but to the position of the heir to the throne. So, 'normal' inheritance laws wouldn't apply as this is not about inheritance.

Sorry - unaware of anything hence the asking - not making ironic remark.

 

[BriarRose]

Are we certain we havent overlooked a precedent or new law?

Unless you are aware of something, the Royal Duchys are not even normal entailed estates, but "crown bodies", with their own particular laws and rules. It would take a specific act of Parliament to change how either Duchy is administered.

The respective Dukes (Cornwall & Lancaster) do not own either Duchy outright- they are only tenants in possession, which limits their rights as well. For example, the current Duke of Cornwall (Charles) could not give Harry half the Duchy, even if he wanted to. He doesn't have the legal ability to do so.