Excalibur
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 135
- City
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Country
- United States
IMHO, they are laying all of this squarely at Charles' feet. H&M expected that they would be treated the same -- or better -- than W&K, because after all they were "more popular". They wanted "financial independence", yet were shocked when all financial support was cut off (by the Bank of Charles) and security was discontinued. What they really wanted, evidently, was to be financially independent of that 5% they were receiving from the taxpayers/Sovereign Grant, not the 95% that was coming from Charles. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
Since Prince Charles funds their royal household, the remark about Meghan having to continue acting, as there might not be enough money for her, could be perceived to have come from Charles as well.
And Meghan's comment about the title inequity didn't stem from Archie's not having a title as a result of the 1917 LP, it was the fact that exceptions were made for Charlotte and Louis. Here is her comment, straight from the transcript (bolding is mine):
Kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm .....
Since Prince Charles funds their royal household, the remark about Meghan having to continue acting, as there might not be enough money for her, could be perceived to have come from Charles as well.
And Meghan's comment about the title inequity didn't stem from Archie's not having a title as a result of the 1917 LP, it was the fact that exceptions were made for Charlotte and Louis. Here is her comment, straight from the transcript (bolding is mine):
Meghan wouldn't even refer to Prince Charles by his name, only "Harry's father".But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . .
Kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm .....