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

[ACO]

Originally Posted by moby

Checking the comments on their announcement on their Insta and I am actually amazed by how the tides seem to have turned against them so fast. When they first posted it, the comments were mostly positive. Now the comments with the most likes are the ones chastising them for the move. The words most repeated seem to be "financial independence"--they are mocked either for the vagueness of language or the hypocrisy of the idea or both.

No doubt this media storm has created a lot of drama but honestly their IG has always had vicious trolls who overtake the comments after a few hours. I wouldn't really be surprised. That was the main issue why they issued that new guidelines. Look under any of their posts and it is always the same ole. I mean even the ones announcing their son's birth.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by ACO

Oprah has already been asked on her tour and she denied the story. This came from Page 6 in the US. It is basically the gossip section and they clearly trying to stir the pot for some clicks. They also asked Serena who refused to comment. They just going after all the high profile people they know.

Yes, as you point out Oprah Winfrey has denied the rumor:

https://people.com/royals/oprah-winf...-prince-harry/

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Thank you! I think the Americans who don’t “get” the monarchy just see the royals as celebrities on the level of movie stars - perhaps because of Grace Kelly. I think those of us who do “get it” probably are also history lovers and have read about the monarchy as part of British history..

You hit the nail right on the head. The average American views royals as just another kind of celebrity - like a movie star or rock musician or (gasp) the Kardashians.

I remember - years ago - a coworker telling me how much she preferred Sarah over Diana because Sarah was "fun" and "acted just like one of us" while Diana was much more dignified in public.

The fact that members of the BRF aren't supposed to act like one of us completely escaped her.

[Alison H]

I think it's very sad that they've damaged their relationship with the rest of the family. I hope Prince Philip is here to enjoy several more Christmases yet, and to get to know Archie, but he's looking pretty frail now. Most people would be wanting to spend time with their grandfather whilst they still had the chance. And Meghan's dad's never even met Harry or Archie. They may not get chance to mend these rifts, and then they may regret them.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Gawin

You hit the hammer right on the head. The average American views royals as just another kind of celebrity - like a movie star or rock musician or (gasp) the Kardashians.

I remember - years ago - a coworker telling me how much she preferred Sarah over Diana because Sarah was "fun" and "acted just like one of us" while Diana was much more dignified in public.

The fact that members of the BRF aren't supposed to act like one of us completely escaped her.

Hence why so many American newspapers are hailing Harry and Meghan for their desire for freedom. I guess it goes back to Americans loathing the idea of a monarchy - see 1776 and thereabouts.

[wyevale]

I begin to think 'the Lady' planned this all along.. [...]

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Hence why so many American newspapers are hailing Harry and Meghan for their desire for freedom. I guess it goes back to Americans loathing the idea of a monarchy - see 1776 and thereabouts.

The counter-argument that should be made is that this not about two people trying to gain their freedom from an oppressive patriarchal ( or, in this case, matriarchal ) structure, but rather two employees going rogue and refusing to follow the chain of command of the corporation they work for.

Americans are free to choose who they work for , but, when they are unhappy with their job, they quit and move on to do something else. Dictating terms and imposing on the organization that employs them for their own personal gain is not acceptable behavior in American culture or, at least, I don’t think it is.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Hence why so many American newspapers are hailing Harry and Meghan for their desire for freedom. I guess it goes back to Americans loathing the idea of a monarchy - see 1776 and thereabouts.

Yes, I agree, I think Americans tend to value individual freedom over duty. A lot of Americans saw Diana as an underdog trapped by a stifling institution.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The counter-argument that should be made is that this not about two people trying to gain their freedom from an oppressive patriarchal ( or, in this case, matriarchal ) structure, but rather two employees going rogue and refusing to follow the chain of command of the corporation they work for.

Americans are free to choose who they work for , but, when they are unhappy with their job, they quit and move on to do something else. Dictating terms and imposing on the organization that employs them for their own personal gain is not acceptable behavior in American culture or, at least, I don’t think it is.

This is the perfect counter-argument.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I begin to think 'the Lady' planned this all along..

Whatever the plan was or was not, the damage is considerable. There is now a seemingly irreparable rift between Harry and the Cambridges ( who used to be very close to him) and Harry, who was an asset to the Institution, is now gone and may even turn into a liability if his and Meghan’s free agent projects end up somehow putting the Crown or the royal brand in an embarrassing or difficult position. There is also the possibility that Harry and Meghan may keep fueling a feud with the Windsors in the surrogate press until they get exactly what they want or even beyond that.

That is why I think Charles wants a reconciliation as soon as possible. He lived through the Diana years, realizes he is not exactly very popular and sees the potential for future damage if that is not contained.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The counter-argument that should be made is that this not about two people trying to gain their freedom from an oppressive patriarchal ( or, in this case, matriarchal ) structure, but rather two employees going rogue and refusing to follow the chain of command of the corporation they work for.

Americans are free to choose who they work for , but, when they are unhappy with their job, they quit and move on to do something else. Dictating terms and imposing on the organization that employs them for their own personal gain is not acceptable behavior in American culture or, at least, I don’t think it is.

Oh I agree completely, but based on Twitter (which is all I can go by), Americans are not looking at it that way. The U.S. newspapers (from what I’ve seen) and Americans think Harry and Meghan have been shackled to a fusty, musty, ridiculous institution. I refuse to read anymore comments or any newspapers, therefore.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That is why I think Charles wants a reconciliation as soon as possible. He lived through the Diana years, realizes he is not exactly very popular and sees the potential for future damage if that is not contained.

Except that the Sussexes are not against Charles personnaly, unlike Diana (and why would they ? Charles has been more than gracious with Meghan), they are obviously against the limitations of the Monarchy as institution.
It would be absolutely crass to them to throw Charles under the bus to obtain what they want ( some part of the deal concerning revenues from Charles btw).

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, I agree, I think Americans tend to value individual freedom over duty. A lot of Americans saw Diana as an underdog trapped by a stifling institution.

Yes, this ...agree completely

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Nico

Except that the Sussexes are not against Charles personnaly, unlike Diana (and why would they ? Charles has been more than gracious with Meghan), they are obviously against the limitations of the Monarchy as institution.
It would absolutely crass to them to throw Charles under the bus to obtain what they want ( some part of the deal concerning revenues from Charles btw).

The logic is that Charles will be the head of the monarchy and, to some extent, may even be already partially in charge. Any future attack on the monarchy for not treating them the way they think they deserve to be treated is therefore an attack now on the Queen and, in the future, on Charles. Likewise , any embarrassing action they make take as free agents ( either political or financial ) that may hurt the image of the monarchy ultimately hurts now the Queen and, eventually, Charles.

In other words, they have proven to be loose canons, so letting them go rogue is unwise., as it was with Diana following her divorce.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

A not insignificant number of people have said since shortly after the engagement that Meghan and Harry would marry, Meghan would have a baby very quickly, and shortly thereafter, Meghan would leave the Royal Family and return to a social media-based brand.

These people were branded as "trolls," "Daily Mail commenters," people who were bigots just opposed to having an accomplished woman of color in the royal family, bitter, and jealous. In turn, they contended that they were, in fact, simply the ones who had taken the time to find out about Meghan and her past beyond what she herself and her friends had presented to the media. They invited anyone to do the same digging and suggested anyone who did would come to the same conclusions they had about the longterm plan here.

Funny who turned out to be dead right.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Obviously they have the time to update their account and post pictures there from their visit to the Hubb kitchen presenting themselves as working royals, they've got nerve, really.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-days-ago.html


First picture of HM since the Sussex bombshell: clearly not amused!

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01...8672325853.jpg

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

A not insignificant number of people have said since shortly after the engagement that Meghan and Harry would marry, Meghan would have a baby very quickly, and shortly thereafter, Meghan would leave the Royal Family and return to a social media-based brand.

These people were branded as "trolls," "Daily Mail commenters," people who were bigots just opposed to having an accomplished woman of color in the royal family, bitter, and jealous. In turn, they contended that they were, in fact, simply the ones who had taken the time to find out about Meghan and her past beyond what she herself and her friends had presented to the media. They invited anyone to do the same digging and suggested anyone who did would come to the same conclusions they had about the longterm plan here.

Funny who turned out to be dead right.

Bingo. I think what we're seeing now is quite a lot of vindication for those who did not have a good feeling about this from the start. And the truth is, many of us who didn't have a good feeling about this from the start really, really wanted to like her and truly hoped we were wrong. We truly hoped that our sense of all of this was just off and the vast majority of us truly had zero racist, classist, other-ism, mentalities about it. We simply saw her for what she was behind the facade that was being offered up by the anonymous friends speaking to People, the Oprah's and Amal's who suddenly became bosom buddies, etc. And sadly, our suspicions about the future plans have been confirmed.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Ista

Here's an interesting breakdown of some of the costs that are associated with the Sussexes, and which will now be under review. Apparently some of the figures given on the Sussex site may not be totally accurate:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...nces-qb0j3pgj8

Here's another:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...revealed-just/

The Telegraph article was very interesting.

They seem to have a number of articles making counterpoints to several Sussex claims/POV. I wish I could read more than the first paragraphs.


By a journalist who has a white mother and black father--

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ndation-widget

It is absurd to blame the Harry and Meghan fiasco on 'British racism'

"...It is true that Meghan has suffered racist remarks on internet platforms. And, no doubt, a very small minority of genuinely prejudiced Britons will dislike the Duchess simply because of the colour of her skin. But the suggestion that the public at large is instinctively hostile to the couple because a dingy, residual bigotry claws at the inner depths of the British zeitgest is absurd. So too the idea that the country's press is institutionally prejudiced, peppering their copy with double-entendres that Meghan is ‘unsuitable’ for the Royal Family, and doesn't 'fit in'. ..."

[Duke of Marmalade]

Meghan flew all the way from Canada, without her son, only to have a great entrance at Canada House and at Hubb Kitchen, only to return straight away after dropping the mexit bombshell. That alone says a lot about her and the attention she craves.

[Missjersey]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I begin to think 'the Lady' planned this all along.. [...]

Can’t say I disagree. I never heard of her before the engagement but as others who followed her have said she wanted to “expand her brand”. Boy oh boy, after getting “Sussex” on her resume up until today, impatience comes to mind. That’s one thing - the issue I can’t wrap my head around is Harry doing this so coldly to his grandmother.

[Jacknch]

Please note that comments suggesting that the Duchess of Sussex is a narcissist have been edited/deleted. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a psychologically abusive and potentially dangerous personality trait. Accordingly, as with other unverifiable health issues we cannot allow such discussion. Thank you.