I never thought New Zealand was one of their destinations to live in, I thought it was Canada, Africa and USA. What I have heard is that Australia was not exactly on their plan.
In the interview with Oprah they mentioned New Zealand, Africa and Canada as potential destinations for their half-in, half-out life.
Good, as far as I’m concerned. So long as it is all fair and above board to Meghan as well as to her accusers, then let the cards fall where they may.
We still don’t know however, exactly what processes are being used however.
Is the Palace going to authorise a full blown attack on Meghan by publicising the results in an official statement to the media, or leave it in its annual reports? If it does the former it doesn’t say much for the olive branch extended to the Sussexes in the Queen’s last statement.
Or is this inquiry going to be more focused on processes going forward on any bullying by Palace staff in the future? If it is, then the British press baying for Meghan’s head on a platter aren’t going to be satisfied
Oh, Curryong, you never disappoint
First it was "no, the palace cannot do this investigation internally", when they hired an independent law firm "but what processes will be used" - we don't know anything yet. Let them work. These are serious accusations, not only for Meghan, but also for the PALACE - after all, if the bullying did happen, the KP and CH offices covered this up to protect her and did nothing for the employees.
Also, I can't imagine a situation in which the BRF will "authorise a full blown attack on Meghan"? What? I can't even imagine this, in no world a "full blown attack on Meghan" would be authorized by the BRF. In what reality they would do that? Not to mention that looking at what's happening now, I'd say it works the other way around...
Knowing what we now know, my sense is that sometime during the pregnancy H&M would have been told that special Letters Patent would not be issued to make Archie a Prince in the current reign, and given Charles' longer term plan of slimming the monarchy, Archie was not going to be a Prince in the next reign either.
Whilst this may seem sensible to those on the outside, especially given the difficult time BEa & Eugenie have had in the press, this did not work for Meghan. She probably convinced herself (and Harry) this was a personal affront to her, and I suspect that is why all the drama surrounding Archie's birth followed.
I would not be surprised if that was true. We have seen this play out with Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie. I'd say not only the titles didn't help them in any way, but also made their life harder. It makes sense to keep the HRH only for William's children going forward (and in the next generation only to George's children and so on...).
That would be smart thinking and learning on mistakes of the past. I do like Beatrice and Eugenie very much, but they should have never had the titles. Of course removing them now is not an option, but making sure the issue doesn't happen in the next generation of young royals is a smart thing to do. Why anyone would take that personally, I don't understand.
But the most interesting thing to me is the correlation (before someone yells, I'm talking hypothetically here!) between this theory and the very private birth/not giving Archie the curtesy title he has every right to, as Harry's son. Maybe the Sussexes were so offended about Archie not getting HRH, that they decided to go nuclear in the other direction - no title at all, no photos leaving hospital, no doctors' names, no godparents names, nothing at all, because they were said he won't be a Prince.