The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:02 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Yeah, I'm sure they're fine financially and have more money than most of us will ever dream of. Harry's just going to have to learn to live more modestly. And they're going to have to let stuff go like the security. I don't doubt this has been a huge change for him but life is change.
They aren't "letting go" of security. They didn't say that. They said that in Canada their RPO security was pulled, which meant Harry had to make some quick decisions. Because they had friends, like Tyler Perry, they were given a breather to figure things out. Tyler Perry paid for their security, sent his private plane for them to fly out of Canada before the border shut down, and allowed them temporary shelter in his Beverly Hills home, till they figured things out. That's what friends are for. Even better when they are friends with money.

M&H weren't and aren't destitute obviously. But who they are as people automatically means extraordinary expenses, chiefly with security, and trying to obtain the kind of lifestyle Harry was accustomed to. Meghan had already given up her entire life and profession. She probably had a few million in investments and the royalties I mentioned earlier, but that's not enough to cover everything they were staring at. Therefore, Harry had to utilize some of the money his mother and great-grandmother left to him. So no neither of them are broke. But I don't think we can imagine the type of expenses they were facing right off the bat. They had to look forward to generating income.

One of their stated desires upon stepping back was to be financially independent because of how the press kept bashing them about paying for their lifestyle, which was not a criticism continually leveled at other royals. They were able to have the breather to make some decisions about how to make money for financial independence, and it worked out for them. They definitely have security that Harry is paying for, and they were able to purchase a lovely, secure home. The Netflix and Spotify deals have helped, and what's commendable is that they also never stopped thinking and planning to launch Archewell Foundation. I thought they might talk about Archewell more than they did. But I guess the main concern for this interview was to clear up some misperceptions about Sussexit, and the constant negative press stories, and how their mental health was affected throughout these challenges.
__________________

  #322  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:02 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
It was horribly damaging. I doubt America will cover any future Royal wedding or coronations.
There won’t be anymore Royal weddings until one of William’s children gets married in a few decades. I am sure the US will be all over it.
__________________

  #323  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
When their public image and the way they were being treated behind the scenes affects their mental health- then yes!
I think that is very sad. I guess Harry can no longer complain that Charles cared more about his public image than him.
  #324  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:03 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 226
The part I don't get is Meghan saying Kate made her cry, but it could have been Meghan's emotion. She was really discreet on it, but she said Kate was upset. Sounded like it was something to do with flower dresses.

They better hope American's don't turn on them.
  #325  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:05 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
That's so sad about the fact it wasn't Harry and Meghan who were dead set against titles for their son.
This is all laid out in the Succession Act of 2013, as of right now Archie isn't entitled to be called a Prince. However, once Charles becomes King he will automictically become one. It's an act of Parliament. Harry knows this and I have NO DOUBT Meghan knows it as well. Apparently they wanted the Queen to make Archie a prince right away. But he will be one someday when Charles is king. Honestly Meghan should have corrected Oprah.
  #326  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Meghan now claiming that "they" "did not want" her child to be a "prince/ princess" and that "they" would had "no explanation." She "heard a lot of this" "through Harry" and "other members of the family."

Now claiming that it was her son was going to be "the first member of color in this family" was "not going to be titled" the same way as other members of the family.

IMHO she meant that for Archie like for the kids of William, new letters patent by the queen would have been needed to make him into a prince before his grandfather became king, because great-grandsons were not considered to even exist when the original letters patent was given in 1917.



I did not see the interview but read a report about it by The New York Times and it didn't sound so off to me.The mechanism how this works has been discussed here and I guess Meghan was informed about the decision and as the NYT put it, she was more concerned about the fact that Archie on not being made a prince, would not receive personal security. Which is a concern I can understand as a mother.
  #327  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:09 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
I don't really believe a word of the interview. I don't think anyone from the mainstream media, apart from Piers, has the guts to call BS on them.
The so-called royal commentators are a pathetic lot.
  #328  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:09 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Some banter between Russell Myers and Camilla Tominey on what happened in the interview with Oprah.
Russell Myers @rjmyers
Meghan has just claimed Buckingham Palace throw "holiday parties" for the UK tabloids and now I am wondering why I never got a ticket #OprahMeghanHarry
1:31 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/rjmyers/status/1368751321696894978

To which Camilla Tominey retweeted
Camilla Tominey @CamillaTominey
Me too! #nfi
1:40 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/CamillaTominey/s...53431456923651
  #329  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
Or maybe, because they’re adults, William and Charles know that life is a series of compromises and trade offs, and that it’s usually more complex than feeling either totally happy or totally trapped. Harry and Meghan both showed some pretty adolescent thought processes tonight.


You said it. Very adolescent thought processes. But- I’ve thought that for a long time honestly.
  #330  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post



I did not see the interview but read a report about it by The New York Times and it didn't sound so off to me.The mechanism how this works has been discussed here and I guess Meghan was informed about the decision and as the NYT put it, she was more concerned about the fact that Archie on not being made a prince, would not receive personal security. Which is a concern I can understand as a mother.
She knows that is not true - Harry is a prince and they complained that he is no longer getting security.
  #331  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:10 PM
Purrs's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 189
Wow, I knew nothing good would come from this interview but I didn't expect it to be this bad.

Harry and Meghan have torpedoed any future relationship with his family for good. It's been obvious for some time that there were issues in the family but this interview will only increase the estrangement. So they not see this interview has made the estrangement permanent? Yes, they probably got a lot of money from it but at what cost?

Does Harry not understand why his mom regretted the Panorama interview? I can't imagine Harry will be welcomed back by the British public ever again. He says he loves his grandmother but they've done incalculable damage to the institution to which she's devoted her entire life. I personally have republican leanings (at least for Canada, my country) but I have tremendous personal respect for the Queen & I recognize it's an important institution in the UK.

I feel very sorry for the Queen , Charles and William & Kate and all the members of the British royal family to have members who chose to do this interview. I can't imagine how hurt they all are.

It's very sad that things got to this level & I don't expect anyone will be able to mend fences now.
  #332  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:12 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
This is all laid out in the Succession Act of 2013, as of right now Archie isn't entitled to be called a Prince. However, once Charles becomes King he will automictically become one. It's an act of Parliament. Harry knows this and I have NO DOUBT Meghan knows it as well. Apparently they wanted the Queen to make Archie a prince right away. But he will be one someday when Charles is king. Honestly Meghan should have corrected Oprah.
Very true, although, I think she should have just given him the Prince title.
  #333  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:14 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
Yep and I think it's a lie they won't be paid for this interview.
The American networks get around that by, say, paying a fee to use personal photos or video footage that the interviewee owns, or paying the going rate for filming at a private location if owned by the subject. Harry and Meghan's chickens were filmed, so Harpo Productions could have paid for the use of the animals, filed under "props". I could get silly here and talk about chicken stand-ins for lighting the set, or chicken stunt doubles, but that would be off-topic.

A few thoughts on the broadcast --

There had to have been some research on her part regarding Harry. Even if someone isn't famous, it's just common sense to do a bit of checking.

I've never read nor heard a member of the BRF call Sarah Ferguson "Fergie" before. That was odd.

Harry's statement about his father and brother being "trapped" and "they don't get to leave" was appalling.

Meghan said that palace staff "lied to protect others, but wouldn't tell the truth to protect us." One just knows that situations are never that cut and dried and things are certainly way more nuanced and complex.

When Oprah asked Meghan if Kate welcomed her, Meghan opened her eyes a bit wider, gave it a two-beat pause and responded that "Everybody was welcoming." Meghan's an actress. She has to know the impression such a response would give.
  #334  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:15 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
This is all laid out in the Succession Act of 2013, as of right now Archie isn't entitled to be called a Prince. However, once Charles becomes King he will automictically become one. It's an act of Parliament. Harry knows this and I have NO DOUBT Meghan knows it as well. Apparently they wanted the Queen to make Archie a prince right away. But he will be one someday when Charles is king. Honestly Meghan should have corrected Oprah.
This is what Chris Ship said:

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv
·
3h
My understanding of them rules is this: the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign automatically get HRH (unless, like Princess Anne she asks her kids not to have them). Great-grandchildren only get them if the Queen intervenes - as she did for Charlotte and Louis

In other words, the Queen intervened for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie. Maybe that is the bone of contention for Meghan and Harry.

(That is, if Chris Ship is correct).
  #335  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:15 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
IMHO she meant that for Archie like for the kids of William, new letters patent by the queen would have been needed to make him into a prince before his grandfather became king, because great-grandsons were not considered to even exist when the original letters patent was given in 1917.



I did not see the interview but read a report about it by The New York Times and it didn't sound so off to me.The mechanism how this works has been discussed here and I guess Meghan was informed about the decision and as the NYT put it, she was more concerned about the fact that Archie on not being made a prince, would not receive personal security. Which is a concern I can understand as a mother.
As some posters have pointed out earlier (and probably phrase it better than I do ), royal titles (HRH Prince/Princess) does not guarantee royal protection. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie no longer has royal protection. Even the Gloucesters and Kents who are HRH Prince/Princesses (as grandchildren of George V through male-line) only has protection when they are doing engagements, despite being working royals.
  #336  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
This is what Chris Ship said:

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv
·
3h
My understanding of them rules is this: the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign automatically get HRH (unless, like Princess Anne she asks her kids not to have them). Great-grandchildren only get them if the Queen intervenes - as she did for Charlotte and Louis

In other words, the Queen intervened for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie. Maybe that is the bone of contention for Meghan and Harry.

(That is, if Chris Ship is correct).
Princess Anne's children were not HRH not because she asked for them not to have it, but because they were not MALE-LINE grandchildren of the sovereign. They were never entitled to have it, mother's wishes aside...
  #337  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:18 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
As some posters have pointed out earlier (and probably phrase it better than I do ), royal titles (HRH Prince/Princess) does not guarantee royal protection. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie no longer has royal protection. Even the Gloucesters and Kents who are HRH Prince/Princesses (as grandchildren of George V through male-line) only has protection when they are doing engagements, despite being working royals.
Do Lady Louise and Viscount Sevren have protection whilst minors? Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie certainly did....

Edit: as of 2011, the Earl and Countess of Wessex lost their RPOs. From my research, it may be funded privately too
  #338  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:18 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
They aren't "letting go" of security. They didn't say that. They said that in Canada their RPO security was pulled, which meant Harry had to make some quick decisions. Because they had friends, like Tyler Perry, they were given a breather to figure things out. Tyler Perry paid for their security, sent his private plane for them to fly out of Canada before the border shut down, and allowed them temporary shelter in his Beverly Hills home, till they figured things out. That's what friends are for. Even better when they are friends with money.

M&H weren't and aren't destitute obviously. But who they are as people automatically means extraordinary expenses, chiefly with security, and trying to obtain the kind of lifestyle Harry was accustomed to. Meghan had already given up her entire life and profession. She probably had a few million in investments and the royalties I mentioned earlier, but that's not enough to cover everything they were staring at. Therefore, Harry had to utilize some of the money his mother and great-grandmother left to him. So no neither of them are broke. But I don't think we can imagine the type of expenses they were facing right off the bat. They had to look forward to generating income.

One of their stated desires upon stepping back was to be financially independent because of how the press kept bashing them about paying for their lifestyle, which was not a criticism continually leveled at other royals.
I'm saying they aren't working royals any more. They will never be working royals again. They've burned that bridge. Of course their security was taken away in Canada. That was entirely appropriate.

No, they're not broke but it's abundantly clear they can't live the kind of lifestyle Harry is used to so they are going to have to economize. Not in the way you and I are used to but economize for him. If that means they can't have security guards 24/7 then so be it. All of Harry's cousins and his Aunt and Uncles seem to survive just fine. And they don't have to live a posh lifestyle. Warren Buffet is fantastically rich and lives in a tiny house. They could retire and live a quiet life out of the public eye but they are choosing to not do that. So I'm not going to cry a river of tears because a couple of rich people can't live quite as posh a life as they want because they chose to alienate his family.
  #339  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:18 PM
teruterubouzu's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: somewhere, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
It was horribly damaging. I doubt America will cover any future Royal wedding or coronations.
Pish posh. They definitely will. Some station will probably hire Meaghan to do color commentary but others will cover it properly.
  #340  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
I will accept an award, because I actually watched that for the second time to make sure what Meghan said.

She said she was feeling suicidal and it didn't seem like her, so she was afraid for herself, blah blah, so she went to some senior palace official (no name was mentioned, no description given to whom) and asked them to be admitted somewhere and claimed that was refused, because it would look bad on the family. (So my guess here be some US clinic known for getting celebrities back into working shape? )

Then she went to the HR department and asked for help, where she was turned down, because she was not a paid employee. Which makes sense, because the HR department is for employees and not members of BRF.

But you're right, it does not make any sense whatsoever. Between the fact that the BRF never actually hide the fact that they do indeed look for professional help in regards to their mental health, all the mental health initiatives they do, like... Just no. Something smells fishy here.

Thank you! I didn't know what she meant with paid employee. Now it makes sense - at least that part, because the rest still doesn't.

Why would Meghan, who doesn't trust "the men in grey" and doesn't want their advice, ask one of them to admit her to hospital? And then the HR department... Why could she not ask Harry? This makes absolutely no sense.

Furthermore, the royal family would not stop a family member from admitting themselves to a clinic if they felt suicidal, that's just completely unrealisitc.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 - Marengo The Electronic Domain 746 03-12-2021 05:30 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×