The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Step Back as Senior Royals: January 2020

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

IF this is true the queen mother is turning in her grave!— wait I correct: doing somersaults!! That any money she and her husband left their grandson is being used to fund an American divorcee who lured a second member of their family away.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rticle-7911003

Nonetheless, that is truly "Charles' money", unlike the Duchy of Cornwall, which is the private estate he only holds in trust for the next generation of heirs as the Duke of Cornwall . If he intends to spend his money that way, so be it.



If, however, as the Daily Mail says, Harry and Meghan are worth "hundreds of millions" in TV/book deals and speaker's fees, I wonder why they would need dad's money.

[Betsypaige]

If, however, as the Daily Mail says, Harry and Meghan may be worth "hundreds of millions" in TV/book deals and speaker's fees, I wonder why they would need dad's money.

There's the chutzpah I was talking about yesterday - he doesn't trust his father anymore apparently, but he's ok with taking his money..

[Missjersey]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I can understand that, but I really think she's not worth expending ANY emotion on - she is an 'ex' person to me.. once [briefly] a member of the BRF, but now she has left this country she simply isn't 'of interest' anymore..

Me too, persona non grata

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Yes, she would be aghast. And knowing how she thought about Camilla, one can imagine how she would think about meghan. I'm so sad that the queen and Charles tried so hard to be different than the queen mother was and it so backfired!I'm just relieved the royals learned from the queen's cousin queen Margrethe of Denmark not to give valuable jewelery to new brides for they could take the jewels with them on divorce. Maybe Eugenie might get the tiara she wore on her wedding, but Meghan did not get "her" tiara as a gift. At least that's what I hope.

The historical pieces belong to the royal collection so are on loan.

I am not sure where the line is drawn with regards gifts e.g jewellery given to a female on a royal visit, as opposed to a gift between husband and wife.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Nonetheless, that is truly "Charles' money", unlike the Duchy of Cornwall, which is the private estate he only holds in trust for the next generation of heirs as the Duke of Cornwall . If he intends to spend his money that way, so be it.



If, however, as the Daily Mail says, Harry and Meghan are worth "hundreds of millions" in TV/book deals and speaker's fees, I wonder why they would need dad's money.

That could be why it is to be reviewed in a year.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

He walked her down the aisle; for a long time we read about their bond - and. no matter what we think, his son appears to be happy with her. I'm sure Charles does care about her -but of course his primary interest is making sure his son and grandson are ok



There's the chutzpah I was talking about yesterday - he doesn't trust his father anymore apparently, but he's ok with taking his money..

It does seem the BRF were welcoming to Meghan, at least at first. But perhaps feelings cooled as Meghan (and Harry) wanted to do some things their way-"the modern way"-- but were told no and it "stifled Meghan's spirit."

Because things sure seemed to have changed from about a year after the engagement interview.

I really wonder about all those Africa rumors from last year now. It puts it all in a new light.

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

IF this is true the queen mother is turning in her grave!— wait I correct: doing somersaults!! That any money she and her husband left their grandson is being used to fund an American divorcee who lured a second member of their family away.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rticle-7911003

Queen Mary is turning in her grave too.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

The only question I have about Meghan paparazzi pics and those saying they were not tipped: how would they know Meghan was picking up a friend from the airport, on that day and that time?
How would they the exact time let alone trail she was gonna walk in?

Tell me how, if they were not tipped in advance.

The same way they knew when Kate was taking the kids around in the park or was leaving her home at night or doing whatever other things she's be snapped doing or when Meghan was snapped going to that business lunch or when they were snapped while she was pregnant leaving a store. There are paps who lay in wait...that's what they do.




LaRae

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by duchessrachel

Queen Mary is turning in her grave too.

What bothers me the most is what "Meghan's friends" claim she allegedly said, namely that she and Harry have no plans to take down the label "royal" from their social media accounts or foundation, and that "they will always be considered royal" no matter what.


If that is true, it seems that they are not taking seriously the agreement not to use their HRH publicly anymore. That might force the Queen to go for the nuclear option of actually legally stripping them of the HRH, which I suppose she doesn't want to do, but might have to.


And, again, we hear claims that Harry and Meghan consider themselves to be "game changers" (previously, they used the word "disrupters") , which is extremely pretensious.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

Oh good grief...if even half of this is true then she's got some serious ego issues. And frankly, needs to tell her "friends" to zip it. Now, it's the DM so who knows whether it's true or not, it could be partially true. As they say, where there's smoke there's fire. And all of this does strike me as very Meghan-esque. But my goodness...if it's even half true that's some serious ego right there.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-family.html

Meghan's friends aren't going to talk to the Daily Mail - she's suing its sister paper, The Mail on Sunday.

[Hallo girl]

It is surprising how many of the ' rumours' now appear to have an element of truth.
I do not think anybody in the uk would have minded if they had chosen to live a private life, no royal duties but a few charities. No state money but Charles helping out, with an appearance at trooping and remembrance services.
This is not what they were aiming for, they wanted to earn private money but take from the family as well.

Another thing that has really annoyed me about all this is, the only being 6th in line and being sidelined.
The older royals who are further down the succession were all further up before this generation were born, they accepted the inevitable and moved on with their life, while supporting the queen at the same time.
Until Charles and Anne were born the Gloucesters and the Kents were very close to the throne, did they complain when the children came along then eventually married and had children of their own.. no.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Alison H

You can't just take a child abroad without the other parent's consent. If Meghan had done that, it would have been abduction. She may have said it - we'll never know - but she couldn't have done it, unless she wanted the police after her!

Especially one whose great-grandmother is the head of state of 16 different countries (including the one the child was taken to). If Harry fell for such an ultimatum he has less smarts that even rumored.

[Missjersey]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

What bothers me the most is what "Meghan's friends" claim she allegedly said, namely that she and Harry have no plans to take down the label "royal" from their social media accounts or foundation, and that "they will always be considered royal" no matter what.


If that is true, it seems that they are not taking seriously the agreement not to use their HRH publicly anymore. That might force the Queen to go for the nuclear option of actually legally stripping them of the HRH, which I suppose she doesn't want to do, but might have to.


And, again, we hear claims that Harry and Meghan consider themselves to be "game changers" (previously, they used the word "disrupters") , which is extremely pretensious.

I hope she does. I’m still stuck on “a progressive new role within the institution” as if they’re running the show. Forgive me, can’t think of another word other than balls.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

It does seem the BRF were welcoming to Meghan, at least at first. But perhaps feelings cooled as Meghan (and Harry) wanted to do some things their way-"the modern way"-- but were told no and it "stifled Meghan's spirit."

Because things sure seemed to have changed from about a year after the engagement interview.

I really wonder about all those Africa rumors from last year now. It puts it all in a new light.

That could be........

I haven't seen the engagement interview in full, to be honest... Rumors?

Originally Posted by poppy7

Doea he care about her or is it his grandson and son. It's a vested interest.

Royal author Penny Junor wrote in the Spectator Harry’s decision has been a “nightmare” for “loving father” Prince Charles.

Ms Junor wrote: “Everyone’s sympathy this week has been for the Queen, now 93, and the upset Harry and Meghan’s decision has caused her.

“But it has also been a nightmare for Prince Charles.

“He is the second most senior member of the family and the one who will take the monarchy forward, but he is also a loving father, facing the possible disintegration of his family.”

Ms Junor adds that the loss of Harry and Meghan would be particularly sore for Charles, who was “desperate” to help his youngest find a happy solution.

She added: “Prince Charles will have been terribly worried about Harry’s happiness, and desperate to help his younger son find the right solution without burning any bridges.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...e-leave-canada

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

What bothers me the most is what "Meghan's friends" claim she allegedly said, namely that she and Harry have no plans to take down the label "royal" from their social media accounts or foundation, and that "they will always be considered royal" no matter what.


If that is true, it seems that they are not taking seriously the agreement not to use their HRH publicly anymore. That might force the Queen to go for the nuclear option of actually legally stripping them of the HRH, which I suppose she doesn't want to do, but might have to.


And, again, we hear claims that Harry and Meghan consider themselves to be "game changers" (previously, they used the word "disrupters") , which is extremely pretensious.

I remember reading a DM article where they speculated that the Queen was considering stripping him of the HRH and The Duke of Sussex, and leaving him with Earl of Dumbarton but thought it was could across as too punitive. If this is remotely true it seems that the Queen can strip the peerage without parliamentary action. If any of this article about Meghan's friends is true, I see this happening sooner rather than late.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

l If this is remotely true it seems that the Queen can strip the peerage without parliamentary action.

It isn’t remotely true. The Queen cannot strip him of his Dukedom. Hence why you read it in a Daily Mail article because nobody bothered to fact check before pressing send.

[Duchessmary]

I would image this had to be heart wrenching for all concerned, but family should always come first. I wish Harry and Meghan the best, and Godspeed.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

I remember reading a DM article where they speculated that the Queen was considering stripping him of the HRH and The Duke of Sussex, and leaving him with Earl of Dumbarton but thought it was could across as too punitive. If this is remotely true it seems that the Queen can strip the peerage without parliamentary action. If any of this article about Meghan's friends is true, I see this happening sooner rather than late.

no the queen cannot remove the peerage

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

It isn’t remotely true. The Queen cannot strip him of his Dukedom. Hence why you read it in a Daily Mail article because nobody bothered to fact check before pressing send.

And that’s why it’s equally surprising to see everyone take the DM at face value all of a sudden. These papers have a massive agenda and they are milking this for all it’s worth.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Elenath

And that’s why it’s equally surprising to see everyone take the DM at face value all of a sudden. These papers have a massive agenda and they are milking this for all it’s worth.

It's beyond me ...I don't understand it at all.


LaRae

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I'm angry at her attitude - she doesn't mean anything to me, but it bothers the heck out of me that she's trying to turn Harry against his family, that she's ungrateful and arrogant (if even a quarter of these stories are true) and that while she is all merry and gay about her new life, she doesn't care that Harry is actually rather sad (even if he is excited). I can't just shrug this off - as a follower of the BRF, I'm extremely hurt on their behalf.

You are implying things you read from the pictures (or out of the media reporting from unreliable sources).

But I agree with you that taking Harry out of the family to form a twosome with him was, well is, bad.
We'll see what happens next and then we might ahve a better basis to choose if we agree or disagree with their choices.