The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[Mbruno]

Obviously not and no one would agree to that. If the son of the Emir of Qatar is living privately here in the US- either the Emir and/or the Qatari government should foot the security bill, same thing if Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway decides to live in the US- his security should be taken care of by either the Norwegian government or his grandfather or father...I hope you get the picture.

Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and Sweden doesn't pay for her security. When she was single and lived in Sweden as the youngest daughter of the King, she didn't have full-time security either, but was provided security only when performing official royal duties. That is the norm in most Royal Houses nowadays.


Honestly I can't even imagine how British police for example would operate in the United States outside their national jurisdiction. Would that be even legally possible ? Or are you suggesting that the British taxpayer should pay for private security for the Sussexes in the US?

 

[Alisa]

I'm guessing you don't have adult children - no one asks to be born. But most of us have to pay our own bills.

No I don't have adult children. However, I cannot imagine not providing them with something fundamental especially if I am capable of doing so.

 

[TLLK]

A gated community? Um no...think of the security breaches that could happen. For ex. paparazzi paying off one of the neighbors so they can spy on the couple's activity, or pretending to be guests of neighbors so they can fly drones around and get pictures and videos of Archie's birthday party or the like.
California real estate ain't cheap. Moreover, we all know their is a correlation with pricy zipcodes and safety. The most expensive zipcodes are in fact the safest zipcodes...low crime rates and more privacy.

Alisa-I am a lifelong resident of the Golden State. I am well aware that "California real estate ain't cheap." However they chose to live in one of the state's most expensive zip codes. There are plenty of properties in less pricey areas with very, very safe communities which are actually closer to Doria.

As to gated communities in CA, yes you can be paparazzi free too ie: Cota de Caza in south Orange Co. which would give them close access to the beach and they'd be closer to Doria.


They chose to purchase a residence in a one of the nation's most expensive communities but want others (Charles, British/American taxpayers) to fund their security. Really????

 

[Osipi]

Beatrice and Eugenie never lived all their lives as senior royals. They're father is not expected to become- it's never been published that they have received death threats. If their father, the Duke of York can understand that his children needs security and be willing to pay for it despite the fact that the York Princesses are both adults and make their own money- how much more so should the PoW.



If the MetPo and Canadian government didn't see it feasible which is their prerogative- Charles should've stepped up and provided it especially as this new lifestyle change was new to Harry. His security and that of his family is one thing he should not have to worry about.



Obviously not and no one would agree to that. If the son of the Emir of Qatar is living privately here in the US- either the Emir and/or the Qatari government should foot the security bill, same thing if Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway decides to live in the US- his security should be taken care of by either the Norwegian government or his grandfather or father...I hope you get the picture.


Thank goodness he could have since his father wasn't going to!

Let's look at this from another angle. When you work for a huge corporation or a firm and have the use of an expense account, all travel costs covered and a nice company car and even, perhaps, a corporation funded penthouse, when you quit that job and walk away from it, should that corporation continue to provide those things for you because you've *always* had them? I don't think so. Not in the real world.

This is basically the situation that Harry has found himself in. As the "Firm" and the family are so tightly meshed together, its possible that Harry grew up expecting things in his life such as funded security because he's never actually had to be without it. It's expected that if he leaves the family "Firm", he'll also lose the perks that comes with being part of that family "Firm". That's the end results of wanting a "private" life "financially independent" and establishing a lifestyle of his own choosing.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

No I don't have adult children. However, I cannot imagine not providing them with something fundamental especially if I am capable of doing so.

By that logic, the Queen should be supporting Prince Charles and the Queen Mother should have supported the Queen while she was alive. People need a lot of fundamental things and sometimes have parents who can pay for them, but most of us pay for ourselves-especially if we choose to leave the family business and live a very expensive lifestyle.

 

[Alisa]

Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and Sweden doesn't pay for her security. When she was single and lived in Sweden as the youngest daughter of the King, she didn't have full-time security either, but was provided security only when performing official royal duties. That is the norm in most Royal Houses nowadays.


Honestly I can't even imagine how British police for example would operate in the United States outside their national jurisdiction. Would that be even legally possible ? Or are you suggesting that the British taxpayer should pay for private security for the Sussexes in the US?

Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and Sweden doesn't pay for her security. When she was single and lived in Sweden as the youngest daughter of the King, she didn't have full-time security either, but was provided security only when performing official royal duties. That is the norm in most Royal Houses nowadays.

Madeleine did have full time security in some capacity. Obviously, living at the royal residence there were palace guards but when she was out shopping in Stockholm or having dinner with Louise Gotlieb she always had at least one body guard with her.

Honestly I can't even imagine how British police for example would operate in the United States outside their national jurisdiction. Would that be even legally possible ? Or are you suggesting that the British taxpayer should pay for private security for the Sussexes in the US?

No that's not what I mean, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant for home country- government of the royal or parent to provide security in the form of hiring US body guards or employing a US security company to provide security for their child. For ex.the Emir of Qatar would personally hire a US security company to provide security for his son while he is living in the US.

 

[Osipi]

By that logic, the Queen should be supporting Prince Charles and the Queen Mother should have supported the Queen while she was alive. People need a lot of fundamental things and sometimes have parents who can pay for them, but most of us pay for ourselves-especially if we choose to leave the family business and live a very expensive lifestyle.

Reminds me of what, to me, was the most important advice on parenting I ever got. (My kids are now all in their 40s and on their own and standing on their own two feet) "The job of a parent is to become unnecessary to the child".

An adult child should never have to depend on a parent for fundamental needs of their lives. ?

 

[Erin9]

Let's look at this from another angle. When you work for a huge corporation or a firm and have the use of an expense account, all travel costs covered and a nice company car and even, perhaps, a corporation funded penthouse, when you quit that job and walk away from it, should that corporation continue to provide those things for you because you've *always* had them? I don't think so. Not in the real world.



This is basically the situation that Harry has found himself in. As the "Firm" and the family are so tightly meshed together, its possible that Harry grew up expecting things in his life such as funded security because he's never actually had to be without it. It's expected that if he leaves the family "Firm", he'll also lose the perks that comes with being part of that family "Firm". That's the end results of wanting a "private" life "financially independent" and establishing a lifestyle of his own choosing.

Exactly.

I do think that it is possible that Harry might have been able to negotiate a nicer exit package so to speak had he and Meghan handled their exit in a professional manner. Charles might have been inclined to be a bit more supportive on a temporary basis. Putting up your website wish list stated as fact was a bad idea IMO. What a way to get things off on the wrong foot.

 

[Somebody]

Apparently Harry arrived back in California today. His car was spotted leaving the airport shortly after an American Airline plane landed around 1.30 pm and arrived at his house in Montecito around 4 pm.

 

[Alisa]

By that logic, the Queen should be supporting Prince Charles and the Queen Mother should have supported the Queen while she was alive. People need a lot of fundamental things and sometimes have parents who can pay for them, but most of us pay for ourselves-especially if we choose to leave the family business and live a very expensive lifestyle.

If the Queen had infinite amounts more money than Charles and he was going through some transition in his life which required more funds then yes..she should've supported him. It's the same logic why parents sometimes offer for their new college graduate to move back home while they get on their feet. It's a transition and they are in a position to and can help. Harry has never had to worry about security before for himself plus his growing family. Charles should've stepped in and provided some assistance or come up with some arrangement.

 

[Biset]

If the Queen had infinite amounts more money than Charles and he was going through some transition in his life which required more funds then yes..she should've supported him. It's the same logic why parents sometimes offer for their new college graduate to move back home while they get on their feet. It's a transition and they are in a position to and can help. Harry has never had to worry about security before for himself plus his growing family. Charles should've stepped in and provided some assistance or come up with some arrangement.

Yeah, it was Charles responsibilty to think about Harry’s family’s safety even he didn’t want him to leave and after Harry did anyway. Maybe then he would not be labelled racist by his son.

 

[Alisa]

Let's look at this from another angle. When you work for a huge corporation or a firm and have the use of an expense account, all travel costs covered and a nice company car and even, perhaps, a corporation funded penthouse, when you quit that job and walk away from it, should that corporation continue to provide those things for you because you've *always* had them? I don't think so. Not in the real world.

This is basically the situation that Harry has found himself in. As the "Firm" and the family are so tightly meshed together, its possible that Harry grew up expecting things in his life such as funded security because he's never actually had to be without it. It's expected that if he leaves the family "Firm", he'll also lose the perks that comes with being part of that family "Firm". That's the end results of wanting a "private" life "financially independent" and establishing a lifestyle of his own choosing.

The analogy doesn't apply here. Because Harry is no longer a senior members of the royal family doesn't change the fact that he is still the son of the next King of England. People know who he is and threats against his life and that of his family are real.

Yeah, it was Charles responsibilty to think about Harry’s family’s safety even he didn’t want him to leave and after Harry did anyway. Maybe then he would not be labelled racist by his son.

Where did Harry call his father a racist? Charles stopped taking Harry's calls at some point- obviously he didn't care and without his father's support or willingness to hear him out Harry felt as though he had no other option but to leave.

 

[Biset]

Where did Harry call his father a racist? Charles stopped taking Harry's calls at some point- obviously he didn't care and without his father's support or willingness to hear him out Harry felt as though he had no other option but to leave.

Well, he called someone in the family racist but he didn’t say who but then he said it’s not his grandparents. So, people think it’s William, Charles or Kate or Anne. Actually if you think about it, what he did is worse than saying the name because now they’re all suspects. But i guess Charles and William’s safety isn’t that important compared to Harry’s.

 

[Eskimo]

For this of you who think the Sussexes are financially secure, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you...

While astounding numbers were thrown about for the Netflix and Spotify deals, they’re not making any money on them until they provide content. So far, they have done 1 podcast for Spotify and have yet to sell anything to Netflix. If anyone thinks that Netflix and Spotify just handed them checks for tens of millions of dollars at the start of the deal, all I can say is that you have a lot to learn about how the real world works.

Meanwhile the bills keep piling up and need to be paid. Their personal expenses are to the tune of several million dollars a year (mortgage, maintenance, security, food etc. etc. etc.) add professional expenses on top of that (PR, business staff, production costs etc. etc.) They need to get their hands on boatloads of money and fast....

 

[Betsypaige]

Harry returned home...it might have been nice for him to stay for HM’s birthday, but since it looks only a few will see her tomorrow, I suppose it’s not a huge deal. I’m sure Charles and William will visit her soon enough...I kind of wonder if maybe Charles felt he needed to deal with his own immense grief before visiting his mum...

Harry's return to the U.S. means he will miss the Queen's 95th birthday tomorrow. She remains in mourning following the death of Prince Philip but will resume official duties on Friday.

Prince Charles will also miss the Queen's birthday and is at his home in Wales. Prince William is also not expected to visit her on her big day.

Harry had been widely reported to have been planning to stay for the Queen's birthday, although sources said he was 'conflicted' about the decision and wanted to get home to Meghan.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Montecito-reunite-pregnant-Meghan-Archie.html


This Times article sums up the head-turning amount of info we’ve had - some sources say one thing, others say differently. I DO believe Charles, William, Harry and Kate met at Frogmore, and I do think it’s presumptuous of the Times to say that nothing has been improved. Harry, as it turns out, did leave...and Charles went to Wales to grieve.

Harry also accused his father of cutting him off financially, and refusing to take his calls. Their relationship is said to be “strained” at the moment, and it is not thought that any exchanges between them at the funeral will have done much to improve matters.

Sources have dismissed suggestions that there was any kind of “summit” between the men at Windsor Castle, and described it as “unthinkable” that they would have discussed anything of significance so soon after Philip’s funeral.

However, since then The Sun has claimed that after the funeral Harry had a meeting with Charles, William and Kate at Frogmore Cottage.

A source told the newspaper: “Harry obviously felt outnumbered as there are three of them and only one of him so wanted it to be on his home turf.

“There is no way this is the end of the crisis in their relationships but it’s a good gesture and a nice way to take the first step towards healing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...allout-over-oprah-winfrey-interview-vzwptl8g0

 

[TLLK]

The analogy doesn't apply here. Because Harry is no longer a senior members of the royal family doesn't change the fact that he is still the son of the next King of England. People know who he is and threats against his life and that of his family are real.

Fact- There have been threats against the lives of the well known, senior royal children of HM the Queen for decades. Fact- One of them (Anne) survived a kidnapping attempt. Fact-One of them (Andrew) like Harry is a combat veteran. Fact-They (Anne/Edward) perform hundreds of duties on behalf of the monarchy, the government, their charities at home and abroad. Fact- However even they the children of a reigning monarch, don't receive full time tax payer supported security.



But Harry and Meghan stated that they should be provided with security in their original statement "as internationally protected people" when they stepped back from royal duties.



They chose to leave behind their royal duties which came with taxpayer provided security. They chose to purchase an expensive, enormous and grand home in one of the most pricey and exclusive communities in the United States. However they believe that others should fund their security???

 

[Lucy Scot]

They chose to purchase a residence in a one of the nation's most expensive communities but want others (Charles, British/American taxpayers) to fund their security. Really????

They chose to leave behind their royal duties which came with taxpayer provided security. They chose to purchase an expensive, enormous and grand home in one of the most pricey and exclusive communities in the United States. However they believe that others should fund their security???

I don't get the outrage because I don't believe that is what they said. Meghan and Harry talked about their security being suddenly pulled while they were still in Canada. They weren't talking about California. They were talking about when they were still living in Canada. Harry said he asked if the threat level for him had changed and he was told "No". I think he did expect his security to be paid for because he was born into the Royal Family. (In my opinion, comparisons with Beatrice and Eugenie don't make sense because they clearly do not have the threat level that Meghan and Harry have.) Harry went on to say that they then negotiated their lucrative contracts to pay for their expenses, including security.

 

[Betsypaige]

Exactly.

I do think that it is possible that Harry might have been able to negotiate a nicer exit package so to speak had he and Meghan handled their exit in a professional manner. Charles might have been inclined to be a bit more supportive on a temporary basis. Putting up your website wish list stated as fact was a bad idea IMO. What a way to get things off on the wrong foot.

I couldn’t agree more. I can’t understand how Harry didn’t know how this would work - or why he didn’t ASK. To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if maybe he did know, and this is all about him wanting to give Meghan everything she wanted.

 

[Eskimo]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...fundamentally-incendiary-topple-monarchy.html

This expert referred to here, Anna Pasternak, is a former lover of James Hewitt. She collaborated with him on a book about Diana. She also wrote a critical piece about the Duchess of Cambridge last year.

 

[Betsypaige]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...fundamentally-incendiary-topple-monarchy.html

This expert referred to here, Anna Pasternak, is a former lover of James Hewitt. She collaborated with him on a book about Diana. She also wrote a critical piece about the Duchess of Cambridge last year.

Like I posted earlier, I think this is insane and sheer stupidity. In no way will a personal rift between William and Harry affect the status of the monarchy; this isn’t in the same league as the Abdication crisis. I didn’t read the article because I just refuse to give this jack any credence.

 

[LadyFinn]

Madeleine did have full time security in some capacity. Obviously, living at the royal residence there were palace guards but when she was out shopping in Stockholm or having dinner with Louise Gotlieb she always had at least one body guard with her.

Article from 2002, updated in 2011.
Carl Philip and Madeleine do not have their own bodyguards
Prince Carl Philip has normally no bodyguards. Not Princess Madeleine either.
- We have no obligation to protect them, says Lars Kronberg at the Swedish Security Service Säpo.
The royal couple and Crown Princess Victoria have personal protection when they are on official assignments. They are also privately followed by armed personnel from Säpo. But neither Carl Philip nor Madeleine have bodyguards.
At Säpo, it is confirmed that the two youngest royal children do not have bodyguards.
- But they can get protection if there is a special threat, says Lars Kronberg, police superintendent at the Security Service.
Säpo is responsible for the highest security of the state leadership, where the king, queen and prime minister have security around the clock. As the future head of state, Victoria also has personal protection.
Carl Philip och Madeleine saknar egna livvakter _ Aftonbladet

 

[stunking]

Taxes

While astounding numbers were thrown about for the Netflix and Spotify deals, they’re not making any money on them until they provide content. So far, they have done 1 podcast for Spotify and have yet to sell anything to Netflix. If anyone thinks that Netflix and Spotify just handed them checks for tens of millions of dollars at the start of the deal, all I can say is that you have a lot to learn about how the real world works.

Meanwhile the bills keep piling up and need to be paid. Their personal expenses are to the tune of several million dollars a year (mortgage, maintenance, security, food etc. etc. etc.) add professional expenses on top of that (PR, business staff, production costs etc. etc.) They need to get their hands on boatloads of money and fast....

Don't forget CA property taxes.

 

[Alisa]

Article from 2002, updated in 2011.
Carl Philip and Madeleine do not have their own bodyguards
Prince Carl Philip has normally no bodyguards. Not Princess Madeleine either.
- We have no obligation to protect them, says Lars Kronberg at the Swedish Security Service Säpo.
The royal couple and Crown Princess Victoria have personal protection when they are on official assignments. They are also privately followed by armed personnel from Säpo. But neither Carl Philip nor Madeleine have bodyguards.
At Säpo, it is confirmed that the two youngest royal children do not have bodyguards.
- But they can get protection if there is a special threat, says Lars Kronberg, police superintendent at the Security Service.
Säpo is responsible for the highest security of the state leadership, where the king, queen and prime minister have security around the clock. As the future head of state, Victoria also has personal protection.
Carl Philip och Madeleine saknar egna livvakter _ Aftonbladet

See this thread https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5093

You'll find information including photos of Princess Madeleine in an unofficial capacity accompanied by her bodyguard.

 

[Alisa]

While astounding numbers were thrown about for the Netflix and Spotify deals, they’re not making any money on them until they provide content. So far, they have done 1 podcast for Spotify and have yet to sell anything to Netflix. If anyone thinks that Netflix and Spotify just handed them checks for tens of millions of dollars at the start of the deal, all I can say is that you have a lot to learn about how the real world works.

No one knows the terms and conditions of their contracts. Oh and they just recently pitched a series that was successfully picked up by Netflix.

 

[UglyAmerican]

California real estate ain't cheap. Moreover, we all know their is a correlation with pricy zipcodes and safety. The most expensive zipcodes are in fact the safest zipcodes...low crime rates and more privacy.

I'm late to the party, but I want to point out that this stops being true past a certain price point. Yes, a $1 million home is likely to be in a safer neighborhood than a $200,000 home in an area where no house costs less than $500,000 unless there's something wrong with it. But a $15 million home isn't likely to be meaningfully different from a $2 million or $3 million home except in terms of its size and amenities, because the $2 million and $3 million homes are already in very safe areas - often gated - and on good-sized lots. And there are plenty of places in the US where a home the size of Frogmore on a larger lot than what they've got now, in a similarly-safe area, can be had for well under $1 million.

Living in SoCal is a want rather than a need. So is having nine bedrooms and sixteen bathrooms. Even assuming security is a need, if they can afford to indulge their wants in that way, then why should anyone else be footing the bill for their needs?

 

[Claricecolin]

If the Queen had infinite amounts more money than Charles and he was going through some transition in his life which required more funds then yes..she should've supported him. It's the same logic why parents sometimes offer for their new college graduate to move back home while they get on their feet. It's a transition and they are in a position to and can help. Harry has never had to worry about security before for himself plus his growing family. Charles should've stepped in and provided some assistance or come up with some arrangement.

Actually The Queen did loan Charles the money for the cash settlement to Diana. At the time of the divorce he was "cash poor". Yes he had plenty of money but not that much cash on hand that was liquid. I feel Charles should have paid for security until they were settled.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/7...tlement-left-prince-charles-outraged-for-days The Telegraph reported it originally. I remember reading it multiple times before.

 

[Sunnystar]

Don't forget CA property taxes.

Those would have been an estimated calculation when they took the mortgage out on their mansion last summer and then fully assessed by the county tax assessor when the tax rolls were updated last fall. They're paid in two installments - Nov 1st and Feb 1st. Due to Prop 13, once the property taxes are assessed against the value at which the property was acquired (base year value) they remain fairly static - there is a 1% limit on the amount your property taxes can increase each year. Mind, I'm sure that a $14 million mansion is going to have a pretty hefty property tax but it is, at this point, now that they've paid their first year's taxes, something that will remain constant and something that is factored into their monthly mortgage payment if they have an escrow account, which they probably do since most lenders require first time homeowners to escrow their property taxes and homeowners insurance - I'm not sure Meghan owned her house in LA and Harry certainly hasn't owned any property in the US, so my educated guess is they probably have an escrow account.

And before anyone chimes in about how H&M are special - sorry, federal regulations require equal treatment in lending decisioning. At best, H&M probably would have had their application treated with kid gloves and moved to the front of the queue when it came to processing, underwriting and closing and the best/top/highest quality processors, underwriters, closers and funders would have been assigned their loan but none of that would have changed the actual decisioning or program requirements. Not to get too far into the weeds but most underwriting these days is entirely automated and lending software apps are going to have controls that don't allow loans to get approved unless the assets, employment, valuation, etc all add up to an approval based on the loan program requirements.

And, yes, I do know of where I speak - I've been in the mortgage industry for close to 15 years and been the closer on loans for MLB, NBA players and members of the US Congress. The special treatment they get is "hey, do well on this loan, please" - and I don't even think I got even that much heads up on the Congressman's loan, lol. I just do my job to the best of my ability and ensure that everything is in order according to company requirements and work as quickly as possible through my pipeline with the highest quality and attention paid to each loan.

 

[Alisa]

I'm late to the party, but I want to point out that this stops being true past a certain price point. Yes, a $1 million home is likely to be in a safer neighborhood than a $200,000 home in an area where no house costs less than $500,000 unless there's something wrong with it. But a $15 million home isn't likely to be meaningfully different from a $2 million or $3 million home except in terms of its size and amenities, because the $2 million and $3 million homes are already in very safe areas - often gated - and on good-sized lots. And there are plenty of places in the US where a home the size of Frogmore on a larger lot than what they've got now, in a similarly-safe area, can be had for well under $1 million.

Living in SoCal is a want rather than a need. So is having nine bedrooms and sixteen bathrooms. Even assuming security is a need, if they can afford to indulge their wants in that way, then why should anyone else be footing the bill for their needs?

A friend of mine lives in a lush 1.5 million dollar home in a nice gated community. It is nice and of course safe but he doesn't space or acreage. His neighbors can easily look into the west side of his backyard. In California one wants land space and acreage in a nice and safe neighborhood it is going to cost a pretty penny.

Of course they could have found a house the size of Frogmore Cottage (not the grounds and acreage though) for under a million dollars- but it wouldn't have had the space between homes for privacy, been close to family and/or friends, or be in a good location that is optimum for financial deals and business.

 

[Sunnystar]

A friend of mine lives in a lush 1.5 million dollar home in a nice gated community. It is nice and of course safe but he doesn't space or acreage. His neighbors can easily look into the west side of his backyard. In California one wants land space and acreage in a nice and safe neighborhood it is going to cost a pretty penny.

Of course they could have found a house the size of Frogmore Cottage (not the grounds and acreage though) for under a million dollars- but it wouldn't have had the space between homes for privacy, been close to family and/or friends, or be in a good location that is optimum for financial deals and business.

BS. They could have absolutely found a home with space between homes for privacy, etc, in a good location that is optimum for financial deals and business for less than what they paid. They paid for the Montecito zip code. They could have easily found something similar for less in Orange County, San Diego or Palm Springs and would have been just as close to LA as they are in Montecito.

 

[muriel]

My criticism and most of the criticism on this thread is due to the decision to publicly criticize his family and hard working palace staff with vague complaints, many of which have been proven to be untrue. I also criticize them for not taking any responsibility for anything - they even blamed palace staff because Harry didn't help Meghan get mental health care!

Very well said! My criticim is really around the way exit from the Firm was handled, I think a lot of the communoication lacked any grace. Unnecessary acts like the publishing of the wish-list of the SussexRoyal website, questioning HMs purview of the term royal in overseas jurisdictions in a press release, or including the phrase "Service in Universal" in the February 2021 press release.

With respect to the silly little story, I could have respected it if Meghan had simply said that the story wasn't true rather than taking passive aggressive digs at her sister-in-law.

I do not think Meghan took passive-aggressive digs at Catherine, she went for an all-out attack, just as she did with The Firm (and HM!) in that Oprah interview.

IMHO, Harry and Meghan should focus on their work, period. Goodness knows there are enough people in need all over the world who could benefit from their good works.

That, IMO, really has to be the message for H&M. Instead of focusing on and aggressively trying to monetise whatever perceived slights they may have had to deal with in Meghan's very brief time (18 months!) with the BRF, they shoul use their time on the commercial and charitable endeavours they suggest they want to pursue.

I was fairly supportive of them until the Africa interview. I pretty much ignored tabloid reports (including ones that turned out to be true: William and Harry weren’t getting along). I thought they did some good things, had some interesting ideas. Didn’t really care about any issues around Archie’s birth, the baby shower, etc. Ignored Meghan is difficult. Forgot entirely the crying story. And so on.

Their decision to start complaining in Africa led me to start viewing them differently. It all went downhill from there. They made a decision to start really putting themselves and their point of view out there. The price you pay is: some people aren’t going to like what they see. I didn’t. Their choice. They opened themselves up to criticism IMO. I do agree you can’t have it both ways: you can’t put yourself out there, make public criticisms.... and not expect criticism to publicly reverberate back. Though the royal family hasn’t done so, others have and will. It is what it is- as long as it is respectful.

I think a lot of posters on TRF felt the same way, and the Africa documntary did indeed mark the turning point in how people viewed H&M.