...It also remains to be interesting that in my opinion Kate and Meghan honestly don't seem to have any issues between them, but Harry hasn't been seen interacting with his brother at shared engagements since last November.

Wasn't he just at the David Attenborough film premiere with Charles and William last month?

Yes, exactly and in my opinion, their lack of interaction was jarring in contrast to their past ways.


Something is clearly brewing behind KP's walls, I don't see how this is still undeniable. Even this very article just names entirely too many names for it to be completely fictitious...

Just to be clear, no I don't take this at face value. I am certain that Harry and his African American mixed race bride and their to be mixed race child won't be 'shipped of to Africa'. It is not possible for several reasons (for example, Meghan's citizenship application and Harry being Counsellors of State that requires him and spouse to live in the UK by law).

First of all, William is not the next King. He’s the future Prince of Wales and he and his wife is very popular. Harry and Meghan is also very popular and they all make up the new faces of the Monarchy.

The Queen is handing down lots of responsibility to the younger royals, so Harry and Meghan aren’t moving away to Africa. Now, they may do a tour and produce a project down there, but they’re not going to pack up and move so William can be satisfied.

The press is enjoying milking the rumor of a sour relationship between the two brothers. We can be made at them, but I think KP, CH and BP has handled all of this stuff wrong. The lack of effort to stop these rumors have helped the rumors gain a life of its own. They’ve allowed the narrative of the Royal Fab Four turn into the Royal Sour Four. None of this is good.

All the commotion & concern from couriers about Harry's role seems excessive. Why can't he just focus on his patronages & projects like Princess Anne, Prince Andrew & Prince Edward? Harry's popularity should be seen as a positive for the firm and it shows that support for the monarchy is secure.

Very well put, and a thought I have expressed a view times before. The attraction of TRF was always a place where disparate views could be expressed and discussed in a respectful manner. We did not always agree, but we could agree to disagree in a civil and respectful manner. We increasingly have a situation here where contrarian views are really not appreciated, and some members often just do not bother posting as it does not seem worth the bother.

It makes no sense to "send" Harry and Meghan "somewhere in Africa", when they just moved to a newly renovated house, while Meghan is in the middle of applying a UK citizenship, and when clearly Meghan and Harry have long term plans with their UK and commonwealth patronages and charities. The Times article makes the courtiers sound and look really out of touch.

I don't believe this story, but I do really like the idea. The Commonwealth is a huge part of the world, and it really should have long term representatives from the RF.

If the palace tried to get every rumour, they be at their desks 24/7. It's impossible. When the palace does respond to rumours, the big ones, it makes the response more credible because they don't do it all the time.

OK, I call BS on the article. Harry has worked hard to be seen as a serious worker. He has successfully carved out a place for himself and, trolls notwithstanding, Meghan has established herself as both a loving and supportive wife and a hard worker.

Their move to FC was always on the cards. Heavens, it was discussed as nauseum as to whether they would get Adelaide Cottage or York Cottage or . . . Then came the announcement that we all got it wrong and it was Frogmore Cottage, a forgotten historical gem. But we all expected a new home and KP was never part of that narrative.

The dialogue only changed with the DM and others insisting the wives were at each other throats.

Roya Nikkhah is the reporter who wrote an article saying the Sussexes wanted their own household independent of Buckingham Palace and the Queen and Prince Charles put their foot down and told them no. She also wrote an article that kinda played into the whole "Duchess difficult" rumor. Nikkhah's reporting was dismissed/condemned by some royal watchers, so I'm actually surprised that this article about a Sussex move to Africa (and a rift with William) is being take at face value.

It’s interesting that matters about the royal rift are now discussed openly in the broadsheets and its not just the tabloid press. It’s all reminiscent of the war of the Wales’s back in the 1990s.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...rift-j3cft5d3d

I don't think many will take it at face value. That's not to say there isn't an underlying truth in there. Also, courtiers may have all sorts of plans that won't ever come to fruition for a variety of reasons. The question for me is what is the main problem that's driving it all? As I said earlier, I think it's the complex dynamics of Charles / William / Harry & their relative positions versus popularity.

Buckingham Palace is not denying a report that officials have discussed sending Harry and Meghan to Africa as a way of capitalising on their appeal to young people in the Commonwealth - and of putting further distance between them and the Cambridges.

Buckingham Palace: “Any future plans for The Duke and Duchess are speculative at this stage. No decisions have been taken about future roles.
“The Duke will continue to fulfil his role as Commonwealth Youth Ambassador.”

Richard Palmer Twitter

I’m not convinced. What if they want another child? Can’t see that happening aboard.

William and Kate might be less exciting than newlywed Harry and Meghan, but why are the royals expected to be flamboyant and interesting all the time?

Take a look at Queen Elizabeth. We love to praise her for her quiet dignity and bespoken composure, yet we expect the future king and heir to act like Big Brother contestants.

I have a feeling one can never satisfy people. Royals are not Hollywood stars, remember that.

I can see the idea being floated but it doesn't seem practical longterm just now with a newborn, a new house and their patronages etc in the UK. A long tour, a big presence on the world stage through the Commonwealth an important project maybe but not exile until Charles becomes King or something.

Although funny, I remember a few years ago before Megan people were wondering if Harry wanted to live in Africa and work with Sentebale and other charities permanently and would meet and marry a charity worker there.

well that's the problem. the second son is often able to be more popular because he has more freedom. Will is stuck with the dull duties, he's married with kids.. He is naturally anyway a rather quiet shy person and not an enthusiastic performer. Harry was always the "lively one"..and with a wife who has a background as an actress I think that they are both going to be the "glitzy" ones who can be more amusing and entertaining...
I don't think that clowning around comes naturally to William and if he tires to do it, it doesn't come off.
but back in the 80s when Charles and Di were very new and popular, there were calls for the queen to retire and let them take over.. they were young, attractive entertaining popular and she was a dull older woman who was out of touch...but she's still here!

I don’t think a position as GG in Australia or Canada is a realistic option. There has been a tradition since the 1950s of the GG of Canada being a Canadian citizen ( although not necessarily born in Canada like Adrienne Clarkson or Michaëlle Jean). Reverting to a British Prince as GG wouldn’t be politically acceptable and, frankly, would only play into the hands of the republicans who would bring back the “foreign Head of State” issue, which BTW seems to be their only concrete argument against the monarchy.

I am not as knowledgeable about Australia as I am about Canada, but I suppose the same reasoning would apply to advise against offering Harry the GG position. In fact, it would be even more politically toxic in Australia than in Canada since republicanism is stronger in the former than in the latter.

On the other hand, I don’t see Harry and Meghan living permanently in a foreign country that is not a Commonwealth realm. There are plenty of Commonwealth countries in Africa, but they are all republics. Having Harry in Botswana or any other African republic could bring back talk of neocolonialism, which would also be politically and diplomatically unacceptable. So I think it won’t happen. Besides, inside the UK, it would look like an exile punishment for the Sussexes, reminiscent of David and Wallis. It doesn’t make any sense

Eh, the same was said of Andrew, once upon a time.
He was more popular than Charles, hard as it is to believe today.

And the Snowdens were once the glitzy ones...

Popularity is very fickle; it can turn sour in a heartbeat. What matters is position in the hierarchy, and William is the one who has it. The RF is well-aware of that.