The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021

[Nico]

Emails are not text messages. Its not like they are going to wake you up.

I could send my boss an email at 4am in the morning or 11 at night. It wouldn't matter. They wouldnt get the email until they opened their computer to start the day. Does anyone actually read the time stamp on an email?


Sorry it speaks worse of the employee. OMG I had an email waiting for me when I started work this morning. Seriously you are getting paid to handle that. Its not like Meghan called them at 4 am and woke them up.


It screams an employee 'I didn't get enough gold stars for showing up to work today'.

What a condescending thing to say.

In some jobs, especially PA, communication, press etc a response to an Email from the boss is expected in the 20mins ors so, days or nighs. It's an implicit rule, or even explicit as this requirement is sometimes detailed in the employement contract.

A boss is deemed a good manager if he/she will abuse or not of this clause.

In France a " right to deconnect" was created in 2017 especially to fight many abuses on this front.

 

[JR76]

According to journalist Richard Palmer the GMA interview were taken down because it didn't include Valentine Low's name but will be reposted later

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368495094395965440

 

[Lilyflo]

Whoa!!! Meghan and Harry's behavior has even put a republican (anti-monarchist) on the side of the Queen:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/...incess-of-woke-had-to-leave-the-royal-family/

In this article, he compares Meghan to the Queen, which sounds reasonable until you wonder whether this isn't holding Meghan to a higher standard than others are held? I'm imagining the same comparison being made with other royal family members, several of whom would also fare badly in comparison to HMQ.

 

[Hallo girl]

I don’t think Harry’s HRH is in danger but I can see Letters Patent being issued saying that only the immediate heir and their immediate heir etc. (so Charles, William and George) are entitled to the HRH

I agree, unless something absolutely awful and earth shattering should come out I cannot see the Queen or Charles taking away the titles. They received a backlash when Diana's was removed, and she was divorced.
They have been asked not to use the HRH in relation to their business dealings and from what I have seen or heard they have honoured their agreement. He will always be the Queens grandson, 6th in line to the throne that can never be removed, in fact he will move closer one day.

 

[Denville]

In this article, he compares Meghan to the Queen, which sounds reasonable until you wonder whether this isn't holding Meghan to a higher standard than others are held? I'm imagining the same comparison being made with other royal family members, several of whom would also fare badly in comparison to HMQ.

However, none of these other royals (whoever tehy re) walked out on their royal life and set up home abroad, said that they did't want to return to royal duties, and seem to be planning to do an interview criticising the royal family and its life....

 

[Heavs]

The communication style from the British court never fails to amaze me.

Do they even have an official spokesperson? Does the press actually have somebody to turn to when they have questions? Or can they only rely on a steady stream of leaks?

In the Benelux a situation like this would be simply impossible. The prime Minister would be forced to put him/herself in front of the RF and explain and defend their actions in parlament. In the UK it seems nobody is making an effort to do this in an official capacity but they spoil us with a never ending stream of leaks.

There are time when "an official spokesman" or simply "Buckingham Palace" who is almost always never named says something but it often goes mostly disregarded by everyone when there's a big flap on. We know that they have begun an official enquiry into how accusations against a member of the family towards staff are handled but that isn't the Big News part of the story. That's the part the government might get involved in if it turns out there is a Maria Teresa sized problem and it's not something that can simply be handled internally.

I don't think Boris Johnson getting in front of the cameras and giving his opinion about the only part of the story people seem to care about (Harry and Meghan and what bombshells they're going to produce) would help matters at all right now. It would just make things worse and be seen as yet more proof that that The Establishment is terrified of what they're going to say and trying to silence them. And the Government has more than enough to deal with right now.

I can't speak for how Benelux handles it but it seems that our Swedish posters are often complaining about how Press officer Margareta Thorgren handles things so even when there is an official spokesperson cock ups can happen.

 

[Denville]

Harry's dukedom is a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom, which the Queen does not have the power to rescind. This would require an Act of Parliament, which is almost certainly not going to happen.

I believe the Queen *could* remove the style of HRH and the title of Prince, through the issuance of Letters Patent to that effect, but I think this is also highly unlikely.

She could but she hasn't done it for Andrew so it is unlikely, unless H and Meghan asked her to remove it so that they could be "normal Americans"... i suppose she'd do it then...

 

[moby]

In this article, he compares Meghan to the Queen, which sounds reasonable until you wonder whether this isn't holding Meghan to a higher standard than others are held? I'm imagining the same comparison being made with other royal family members, several of whom would also fare badly in comparison to HMQ.

Sure but the focus is on Meghan because others didn't say silly things like "collaborate" with the Queen, "service is universal", propose a half-in, half-out system, strike multimillion deals with Spotify and Netflix but that isn't enough so is now crying to Oprah about how d I F f i C u L t it was being part of "The Firm"?

 

[rominet09]

According to journalist Richard Palmer the GMA interview were taken down because it didn't include Valentine Low's name but will be reposted later

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368495094395965440

Very interesting article....

 

[poppy7]

Very interesting article....

I think he makes very fair points. I do t think they will sue because whether they agree with the allegations or not the Sussexes know its true.

As for whether they crave rejection. I would question that as perspective. If Meghan and or Harry felt they were being rejected the whole thing would have descended into looking like that because all they would have heard is the negatives

So I would question whether that instinct was conscious or unconscious. It sounds like a horrific situation for all involved. And History has repeated itself but the question is what history.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

There are time when "an official spokesman" or simply "Buckingham Palace" who is almost always never named says something but it often goes mostly disregarded by everyone when there's a big flap on. We know that they have begun an official enquiry into how accusations against a member of the family towards staff are handled but that isn't the Big News part of the story. That's the part the government might get involved in if it turns out there is a Maria Teresa sized problem and it's not something that can simply be handled internally.

I don't think Boris Johnson getting in front of the cameras and giving his opinion about the only part of the story people seem to care about (Harry and Meghan and what bombshells they're going to produce) would help matters at all right now. It would just make things worse and be seen as yet more proof that that The Establishment is terrified of what they're going to say and trying to silence them. And the Government has more than enough to deal with right now.

I can't speak for how Benelux handles it but it seems that our Swedish posters are often complaining about how Press officer Margareta Thorgren handles things so even when there is an official spokesperson cock ups can happen.

As far as I can tell, the involvement of the government with the court and how it's run differs greatly from country to country. The decision of PM Bettel to get involved in the case of Maria Theresa seems to have been
a) a personal one, because Jean-Claude Juncker before him seems to have not done anything of the sort.
And b) That he felt nothing was being done by the Lux Family themselves to properly address the bullying situation and fast staff-turnover. Which was also objectively true.

Since the BRF has already announced an investigation, I don't think there's a necessity for the government to get involved, unless there's evidence that the investigation is not properly done. But I rather think the Queen and William know that they cannot afford for this investigation to be a cover-up or only lip-service.

I agree that for the PM to comment on Meghan & Harry would only stoke the fire and help them push their narrative of "the establishment is trying to destroy us." Unless the Queen is insulted in a way that absolutely cannot go unchallenged - I do think they are insulting her constantly, but there is still a line that, if they crossed it, the government might actually have to comment.

 

[poppy7]

I agree, unless something absolutely awful and earth shattering should come out I cannot see the Queen or Charles taking away the titles. They received a backlash when Diana's was removed, and she was divorced.
They have been asked not to use the HRH in relation to their business dealings and from what I have seen or heard they have honoured their agreement. He will always be the Queens grandson, 6th in line to the throne that can never be removed, in fact he will move closer one day.

Yea but I think really the direct line should always have the titles which is what is happening now. Children and siblings of the monarch or expected monarch.

So presuming that The Cambridges have no more children that the next new HRH will be potentially George's children. Siblings of the heir should be HRH though as tragically you never know and you don't know of the heir won't have kids for example.

 

[Denville]

Yea but I think really the direct line should always have the titles which is what is happening now. Children and siblings of the monarch or expected monarch.

So presuming that The Cambridges have no more children that the next new HRH will be potentially George's children. Siblings of the heir should be HRH though as tragically you never know and you don't know of the heir won't have kids for example.

That would take away the HRH from Charlotte and Louis..

 

[poppy7]

taht wuodl take away teh HRH from Charlotte and Louis..

No it wouldn't. Read what I wrote. But their kids shouldnt have it.

 

[Mbruno]

In the Benelux a situation like this would be simply impossible. The prime Minister would be forced to put him/herself in front of the RF and explain and defend their actions in parlament. In the UK it seems nobody is making an effort to do this in an official capacity but they spoil us with a never ending stream of leaks.

My impression is that, in the UK, the RF stays away from politics and, likewise, politicians try to stay away as far as possible from internal RF matters, so the PM is not expected to put himself in front of the RF to explain or defend their actions in parliament or to the press. That separation between the RF and the government is clearer in the UK than in some continental European monarchies. What do you think?

Yea but I think really the direct line should always have the titles which is what is happening now. Children and siblings of the monarch or expected monarch.

So presuming that The Cambridges have no more children that the next new HRH will be potentially George's children. Siblings of the heir should be HRH though as tragically you never know and you don't know of the heir won't have kids for example.

That changes a lot from country to country, but the "least common denominator" to which many European monarchies seem to be converging (the Netherlands, Spain, most recently Sweden) is to keep the HRH for the heir, children of the monarch (other than the heir when he/she is also a child of the monarch), and children of the heir. Some countries like Belgium, however, still extend the HRH to all grandchildren of the monarch and even to all grandchildren of the heir.



Personally I don't expect any change to royal title rules in the current reign in the UK. Keep in mind that, if anything, Queen Elizabeth II has actually broadened the class of people who are entitled to the HRH by extending it to all children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales (i.e. Charlotte and Louis in addition to George only as before). There may be some slimming down under Charles, but I don't expect anything radical or dramatic.

 

[Marengo]

You are right Mbruno, the Dutch and Belgian monarchies are far more political due to the fact that the PM is politically responsible for what members of the RF do. It ensures more debates in parlament about various aspects of the monarchy and at the same time it means that in times of crisis it is the prime minister who will be forced to explain what happened and by doing so is responsible for defending the monarchy. This encourages some form of transparency and accountability but at the same time can make the monarchy a tool to hit the prime minister with, as we saw with the latest of Wilelm-Alexander's many Greek travels of 2020.

In a case like this I can imagine a Dutch or Belgian PM would have received questions from MP's about the interview and he or she would be able to explain or refute claims that are going to be made by the Duke and Duchess against the palace.

Both systems have negatives and positives but to me it seems far from ideal that the monarchy is just left out to dry without being able to defend itself, other than through anonymous leaks. Leaks that, some would argue, may do more damage to them than good

 

[MaiaMia_53]

[...]We have not yet seen any specific reference to individuals or to staff in making specific allegations. That may come during the full interview, but meanwhile it's all speculation until we actually hear what Meghan has to say in full.

Therefore the feeling that "others have the right to defend themselves," presupposes that there's an expectation or a worry by certain individuals that Meghan is planning to single out particular instances of conflict or worse that she has experienced, and also name names. Again, that hasn't happened yet, and we don't know that it will. So once again, the desire to get ahead of anything Meghan might have to say without knowing what she's planning to say, presupposes that Meghan has 'a side of the story to tell' about something unpleasant.

Anyone worried and full of trauma hopefully could have received assistance as well as apologies and any necessary counseling or restitution by pushing for the matter to be looked into asap when these alleged events occurred.


It appears that many people in Britain and America, etc., are skeptical of the accusations against Meghan. I'm not certain if Dave McCladd is a writer or a humorist, but apparently he's British, and he randomly made a satirical comment that started several parody threads which slyly reference Meghan and the latest accusations against her. Too funny and very apt, as the best parody/ sarcasm can be:

He started out several days ago making random comments like:
"Look, I was supportive of Meghan at first, but I just can't condone someone who started World War I"

"gah I've just knocked over a cup of tea bloody hell Meghan Markle this is your fault AGAIN"

Then yesterday this thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368225780703109120

"can't believe that Meghan also invented nuclear weapons"


Some of my favorite reply comments in this thread:
"I believe it was Meghan who scratched my car in the supermarket parking lot with her trolley."

"Meghan's the one who shot J.R."

"At least she gave Gaga her dogs back..."

?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

[...]

[...]Is it possible that he glossed over things because he didn't want to risk Meghan making the same decision?

I find it hard to believe that she didn't know what she was letting herself in for, even if Harry didn't spell it out, but it's possible. If so, that wasn't very fair either on the Royal Family or on her.

[...]

Meghan fell in love with Harry for who he is as a person, not for his princely titles and royal heritage. When you are in love, you tend to focus on the positives. Plus, Meghan is a happy, positive person in general. I know that because when it was first revealed that Meghan and Prince Harry were dating, and a lot of negative things were being said about her, I decided to find out who she is for myself. I did my homework before jumping to conclusions. I'd never heard of Meghan before, and I'd only casually heard of Suits in a limited way, but I'd never seen it since I didn't watch much television at the time. I made sure I boned up on all the information that was available, and there was a lot available on YouTube (very unusual for someone dating a British prince). But Meghan was an actor who was in the public eye, even if she to that point wasn't widely known. She was known within the industry, and she was becoming increasingly visible because of the opportunities her successful tv series was providing.

The available information on Meghan in late 2016 included a variety of interviews, fashion shoots and hair modeling features. There was none of the absolute negative crap that now clogs YouTube about Meghan and requires wading through to get to something substantive, factual, and/or truthful. Plus, I checked out Meghan's former Instagram and her former Tig blog, the U.N. speech from 2015, and the Larry King Live interview in early 2016 with Meghan in which she said: "I think it's possible to be a feminist, and to be feminine, to embrace both..."

I was intrigued, and the more I researched and read about Meghan, some of it her own writing about her personal experiences, plus her well-curated, funny and upbeat Instagram account, it began to dawn on me that Meghan seemed interesting and someone well worth getting to know more about. The more I read and saw of her, the more impressed I became. And I thought, "Boy, Harry is lucky to have met her." I think Meghan felt and still feels the same way about having met Harry, simply because they are kindred spirits. Not anything more than that truthfully. As Meghan said sincerely in the engagement interview, when the opportunity to meet Prince Harry was first suggested to her by a friend: "I asked her whether he was kind, because if he wasn't kind, it didn't seem to make sense..."

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

[...]We have not yet seen any specific reference to individuals or to staff in making specific allegations. That may come during the full interview, but meanwhile it's all speculation until we actually hear what Meghan has to say in full.

Therefore the feeling that "others have the right to defend themselves," presupposes that there's an expectation or a worry by certain individuals that Meghan is planning to single out particular instances of conflict or worse that she has experienced, and also name names. Again, that hasn't happened yet, and we don't know that it will. So once again, the desire to get ahead of anything Meghan might have to say without knowing what she's planning to say, presupposes that Meghan has 'a side of the story to tell' about something unpleasant.

Anyone worried and full of trauma hopefully could have received assistance as well as apologies and any necessary counseling or restitution by pushing for the matter to be looked into asap when these alleged events occurred.


It appears that many people in Britain and America, etc., are skeptical of the accusations against Meghan. I'm not certain if Dave McCladd is a writer or a humorist, but apparently he's British, and he randomly made a satirical comment that started several parody threads which slyly reference Meghan and the latest accusations against her. Too funny and very apt, as the best parody/ sarcasm can be:

He started out several days ago making random comments like:
"Look, I was supportive of Meghan at first, but I just can't condone someone who started World War I"

"gah I've just knocked over a cup of tea bloody hell Meghan Markle this is your fault AGAIN"

Then yesterday this thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368225780703109120

"can't believe that Meghan also invented nuclear weapons"


Some of my favorite reply comments in this thread:
"I believe it was Meghan who scratched my car in the supermarket parking lot with her trolley."

"Meghan's the one who shot J.R."

"At least she gave Gaga her dogs back..."

?

I get that this is meant to be funny and appreciate both the humor behind the posts (I take it they are a silly knock-off on the #thanksObama style posts) and your inserting the levity into this thread, but....

I hope you, and others, realize that the knocking over a cup of tea is almost certainly a knock on an employee who supposedly had scalding tea thrown over her by her employer, Meghan. It's not funny, it's not a joke, and it's (yet more) victim-shaming after several glorious days of it here and elsewhere.

You can be "skeptical of the claims against Meghan" without making a "parody" of serious claims of bullying and, in this case, something quite a bit more serious. But I guess that should leave me "rolling on the floor laughing."

 

[Fem]

[...]
Maybe with more time and more caution Meghan would have more time to get to know people in the UK and understand the way BRF works and if she can live with the boundaries of becoming a member of a royal family.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I get that this is meant to be funny and appreciate both the humor behind the posts (I take it they are a silly knock-off on the #thanksObama style posts) and your inserting the levity into this thread, but....

I hope you, and others, realize that the knocking over a cup of tea is almost certainly a knock on an employee who supposedly had scalding tea thrown over her by her employer, Meghan. It's not funny, it's not a joke, and it's (yet more) victim-shaming after several glorious days of it here and elsewhere.

You can be "skeptical of the claims against Meghan" without making a "parody" of serious claims of bullying and, in this case, something quite a bit more serious. But I guess that should leave me "rolling on the floor laughing."

Count me in as one of the (apparently few) Americans who do not find it funny and who do not see the "humor".

This is the first I have read about any incident involving hot tea. There is simply no way to excuse/rationalize this if it's true.

 

[Sionevar]

[...]I do wonder if Meghan really, truly understood what she was taking on when she became engaged to Harry. That it would mean living a high profile life of privilege, but bound by numerous rules and restrictions, and having to do things the way The Firm expects them to be done, rather than the way you personally want to do them.

I can absolutely sympathize with her finding those rules and restrictions too hard to live with - it is not a way of life I could ever tolerate myself. But it is the price of marrying into the BRF. Was it not explained properly too her? Was it explained, but she didn't listen? Did she listen, but quietly think 'I will be able to change this' only to later discover she absolutely could not?

It's just all very sad in hindsight.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

[/B]Maybe with more time and more caution Meghan would have more time to get to know people in the UK and understand the way BRF works and if she can live with the boundaries of becoming a member of a royal family.

[...] it may have been better if she hadn't "hit the ground running" as a full-time senior member of the royal family. I understand there was a lot of pressure on Meghan to make appearances, but it may have been better to ease into the job.

 

[Erin9]

[...] it may have been better if she hadn't "hit the ground running" as a full-time senior member of the royal family. I understand there was a lot of pressure on Meghan to make appearances, but it may have been better to ease into the job.

My feeling has been that Meghan WANTED to “hit the ground running.” She said she did- and I believe her. That rang true- then and now.

She was used to having a job, used to public speaking, had some media experience, was used to working with charities, projected a lot of confidence. I really don’t think she thought she needed to ease into anything.

It is my opinion that if she had wanted to ease into things....no one would have pushed her to do otherwise. (They may well have encouraged her to ease in- and she failed to heed the advice.)

Everyone remembered the problems with Diana. Kate was certainly eased in- of course, her and William’s jobs/life/age/life experiences were very different from Harry and Meghan’s when they married.

 

[irish_royalist]

[...]I do wonder if Meghan really, truly understood what she was taking on when she became engaged to Harry. That it would mean living a high profile life of privilege, but bound by numerous rules and restrictions, and having to do things the way The Firm expects them to be done, rather than the way you personally want to do them.

I can absolutely sympathize with her finding those rules and restrictions too hard to live with - it is not a way of life I could ever tolerate myself. But it is the price of marrying into the BRF. Was it not explained properly too her? Was it explained, but she didn't listen? Did she listen, but quietly think 'I will be able to change this' only to later discover she absolutely could not?

It's just all very sad in hindsight.

If Meghan did not appreciate what was entailed with marrying Prince Harry, then that is entirely the fault of Prince Harry. He seems to continually quote that he doesn't want 'history to repeat itself' - a significant part of this history was the idea that Diana was not prepared for her role in marrying into the BRF. If this was so important to Harry, he should have made it his chief ambition that Meghan knew EXACTLY what she was getting into, warts and all. It appears, sadly, he did not do this. Hence many of their problems.

 

[Denville]

If Meghan did not appreciate what was entailed with marrying Prince Harry, then that is entirely the fault of Prince Harry. He seems to continually quote that he doesn't want 'history to repeat itself' - a significant part of this history was the idea that Diana was not prepared for her role in marrying into the BRF. If this was so important to Harry, he should have made it his chief ambition that Meghan knew EXACTLY what she was getting into, warts and all. It appears, sadly, he did not do this. Hence many of their problems.

Possibly Harry sees it more as the press harrasing him and Beign hostile to Meghan...but I think he shoudll indeed have warned her that the press are pretty awful and that the only way to live with them is to totally ignore them..

 

[US Royal Watcher]

My feeling has been that Meghan WANTED to “hit the ground running.” She said she did- and I believe her. That rang true- then and now.

She was used to having a job, used to public speaking, had some media experience, was used to working with charities, projected a lot of confidence. I really don’t think she thought she needed to ease into anything.

It is my opinion that if she had wanted to ease into things....no one would have pushed her to do otherwise. (They may well have encouraged her to ease in- and she failed to heed the advice.)

Everyone remembered the problems with Diana. Kate was certainly eased in- of course, her and William’s jobs/life/age/life experiences were very different from Harry and Meghan’s when they married.

I agree with your post. I didn't mean to imply that Meghan was pressured to start royal duties immediately (she was very clear about wanting to start), just that it may have been better to ease into it. I'm not sure it would have made a difference but it may have made it easier for her.

 

[Erin9]

I agree with your post. I didn't mean to imply that Meghan was pressured to start royal duties immediately (she was very clear about wanting to start), just that it may have been better to ease into it. I'm not sure it would have made a difference but it may have made it easier for her.

Gotcha. Agreed. It may not have made a difference in the end if she’d eased in, but it might have made things easier for her at least.

 

[AC21091968]

I get that this is meant to be funny and appreciate both the humor behind the posts (I take it they are a silly knock-off on the #thanksObama style posts) and your inserting the levity into this thread, but....

I hope you, and others, realize that the knocking over a cup of tea is almost certainly a knock on an employee who supposedly had scalding tea thrown over her by her employer, Meghan. It's not funny, it's not a joke, and it's (yet more) victim-shaming after several glorious days of it here and elsewhere.

You can be "skeptical of the claims against Meghan" without making a "parody" of serious claims of bullying and, in this case, something quite a bit more serious. But I guess that should leave me "rolling on the floor laughing."

Especially when Dave McCladd has a history of making fun of children of Conservative politicians (Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg). Look it's one thing to satirise and make fun politicians, but it's completely different when it involves children, who happens to born into the family. I disagree with his political view and hence I have been avoiding him on social media, but sometimes his satirical jokes keep popping up, because there are popular amongst his left-wing remainer twitter audience. Dave McCladd should consider himself lucky that both Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg have very thick skin, who often play the abuses/attacks down and don't complain about them for the sake of freedom of speech.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1117110037766234112

https://twitter.com/x/status/1255597196449374212

https://twitter.com/x/status/1233879182465290242

https://twitter.com/x/status/1116799611904065536

https://twitter.com/x/status/1284635735426039809

https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1284808180518850562
https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1352906855304015878 (Comparing COVID-19's variant and virus replication to the Rees-Mogg fertility with six children)

He is probably the same twitter users behind #Bekind and yet making vile comments on children of right-wing politicians, just because he does not agree with them. I would have thought Harry & Meghan's supporters would be critical of comedians/satirist making fun of children, given what happened to Archie (conspiracy theories on how Archie is a doll or born out of a surrogate and Danny Baker's baby chimp tweet which are absolutely vile).

But then why should I be surprised given that some of them have make vile comments on the Cambridge children and other members of the royal family on social media.

Also in regards to the tweet where he mentioned about the Queen's family who started WWI, since when should The Queen and royal family be blamed over what Wilhelm II, George V or Nicholas II did over a decade ago? And The Queen was not even born then and George V died when Elizabeth II was still a child.

 

[Heavs]

If Meghan did not appreciate what was entailed with marrying Prince Harry, then that is entirely the fault of Prince Harry. He seems to continually quote that he doesn't want 'history to repeat itself' - a significant part of this history was the idea that Diana was not prepared for her role in marrying into the BRF. If this was so important to Harry, he should have made it his chief ambition that Meghan knew EXACTLY what she was getting into, warts and all. It appears, sadly, he did not do this. Hence many of their problems.

Clearly something broke down somewhere but:

In their engagement interview Harry said that he had lost relationships because the women didn't want the hassle and life that he came with and that made him determined to explain to Meghan exactly what it would entail ASAP so she could say “thanks but no thanks” if it wasn’t something she thought she wanted for her life. And she was nodding beside him saying she saw opportunities.

Either he didn’t do as good a job as he thought he did and Meghan was left with the impression of a Disney princess or that they could make changes they actually couldn't, Meghan thought she could handle it but quickly found out she couldn’t, Meghan lied and was never okay with it or they both agreed that if it wasn’t working out 100% then they could get out quick and didn’t tell anyone else about that.

She had already seen what the press could be like on her own behalf before the engagement and a quick search of a decade’s worth of discussion on Kate’s suitability, virginity, family including her teenage sister, work ethic, fertility, religion, upskirt shots, Uncle Gary and footage of her running down the street as a 23 year old pursued by a dozen large men with cameras on her birthday could have clued her in that it is intense, invasive, and never ending even when you actually get married. She could also look up the same thing for Chelsey. Or read any of the many books that say it isn't a glamourous life of choosing what you want to do or say what you want to say. But that there are ways of doing good things which are different from what she was used to.

I know why they moved very quickly but also living together and living in the UK for longer would have given her a chance to get to know more people and the culture and decide if she liked it. Because I don’t think it’s better or worse than many places in the US in terms of things like racism and progressiveness but it is very *different*.

Apart from anything else they both made a huge amount of changes in a short amount of time: finished a job, changed continent, got married, started a new job, immediately got pregnant, became globally famous not cable TV famous. Dramatically quit a job, break down with family, new “job” that relies on a connection to your old job that you now hate, another continent move, another baby, several law suits, more difficult family situations and whatever’s next. That’s a hell of a lot and I’m only going over the basics.