The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[taogg]

They are privileged are the royals are lets not pretend they aren't. Most of them have the help of nannies (including the Wales') and I get that. They can afford it and working royals do have behind the scenes stuff that no one knows about.

The thing is, if Meghan wanted to portray herself as a hardworking, hands-on, 'ordinary' mom, she shouldn’t have mentioned that she lets the nanny handle school drop-offs because she has meetings. I’m sure the Wales don’t drop their kids off every day either, but they don’t make a point of mentioning it. Or maybe we’re all wrong, and she’s just showing off her privilege.

 

[hereditarytitles]

The thing is, if Meghan wanted to portray herself as a hardworking, hands-on, 'ordinary' mom, she shouldn’t have mentioned that she lets the nanny handle school drop-offs because she has meetings. I’m sure the Wales don’t drop their kids off every day either, but they don’t make a point of mentioning it. Or maybe we’re all wrong, and she’s just showing off her privilege.

I think there is a big difference between William/Kate and Harry/Meghan. Although William and Kate are criticized for perhaps not working enough, Meghan and Harry are completely different. What do they work? The occasional charity appearance from both of them, now a new website to market sales of jam or whatever? That's not hard work.
That's why I think it's inappropriate to post comments about how stressful life is.
Her life was certainly more stressful when she wasn't married to Harry and had to earn her own living. Has she completely forgotten that?

 

[carlota]

But she using the title. So ticking off her friend for referring to her as Meghan Markle and not Sussex was a plant. All this drip feed is so typical of her, drip drip every day until now we know she has been using them all the time. Even the photograph of the gift card was from last year, so we-are being told.
She is a manipulator alright.

she's mentioned the topic of Meghan Sussex countless times now - in her show, in an interview with a magazine this year and in the podcast with her friend kerry kern lima. she clearly wants everyone to know that.

 

[taogg]

The occasional charity appearance from both of them, now a new website to market sales of jam or whatever?

Maybe I’ve just missed it, or I’ve been too distracted by all their business ventures, but what actual charity events have they attended, besides that California fire 'volunteering'? The only ones I remember are award shows where they were being honored for charity work, not actually doing it. They seem to show up more for business than for anything truly charitable.

 

[hereditarytitles]

You're right, Invictus Games comes to my mind and yes, their attention at the California fires. I mostly remember Harry for Invictus Games and "Sentebale", which sadly enough has been abandoned. Didn't he do some charity work playing polo? Or was that also a business venture?

 

[taogg]

You're right, Invictus Games comes to my mind and yes, their attention at the California fires. I mostly remember Harry for Invictus Games and "Sentebale", which sadly enough has been abandoned. Didn't he do some charity work playing polo? Or was that also a business venture?

But didn’t the polo match end up attracting more criticism than praise mainly because Meghan directed Dr Chandauka to move away from standing next to Harry during the trophy presentation? The whole thing turned into a sideshow, and of course, no one remembers or even cares how much money was raised for charity.

 

[hereditarytitles]

I looked it up. The match was intended to benefit "Sentebale", but got negative news because of accusations that Harry was selling this to Netflix. Plus, the controversy between Meghan and the Sentebale chairwoman.
It is such a pity, they could have handled the whole case so much better. They have to understand doing work for charity is a noble thing, but it has to be separated doing commercial business to earn money. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Prince Harry scores goal in charity polo match as Meghan, Netflix cameras look on

Prince Harry scored a goal in a charity polo match as his wife, Meghan, and cameras for a Netflix miniseries looked on.

apnews.com

 

[OwlBranch]

In the latest episode of Meghan's podcast, she interviewed Jamie Kern Lima, the founder of "IT cosmetics" which was sold to L'Oreal for USD 1.2Billion dollars. Yes, that's "Billion". Jamie spent years trying to get her products on QVC, onto store shelves but it was a real struggle. At one point, she needed a business loan and was turn down by 22 banks!!! The mental strength to keep going even after she was told "no" hundreds of times is really impressive.

Can you imagine if Meghan was turned down by 22 banks, and the kind of story the Daily Fail will write?

Many start-ups struggle in the first few years, but they have the luxury of toiling in the dark. Not every failure is front page news, or blasted on social media. Compare to other companies, the early struggles of As ever is not unusual and definitely blown out of proportion.

As an actress, Meghan was told "no" hundreds and thousands of times. [.....]Meghan has demonstrated that she can persevere in the face of adversity. They have really underestimated her!

 

[tihkon2]

you know, people might buy her stuff in the UK out of curiosity. She has so much gall though to even sell stuff there. Ugh.

 

[Toledo]

In the latest episode of Meghan's podcast, she interviewed Jamie Kern Lima, the founder of "IT cosmetics" which was sold to L'Oreal for USD 1.2Billion dollars. Yes, that's "Billion". Jamie spent years trying to get her products on QVC, onto store shelves but it was a real struggle. At one point, she needed a business loan and was turn down by 22 banks!!! The mental strength to keep going even after she was told "no" hundreds of times is really impressive.

Can you imagine if Meghan was turned down by 22 banks, and the kind of story the Daily Fail will write?

Many start-ups struggle in the first few years, but they have the luxury of toiling in the dark. Not every failure is front page news, or blasted on social media. Compare to other companies, the early struggles of As ever is not unusual and definitely blown out of proportion.

As an actress, Meghan was told "no" hundreds and thousands of times. This is not an experience that anyone from the royal family can relate! After all, people bow down to them since they were born!! Meghan has demonstrated that she can persevere in the face of adversity. They have really underestimated her!

Meghan turned down two families, her own and the in-laws, turned down one entire country that she didn't stay for the extra year to qualify for citizenship, and turned down rationale and listening to advice from hired staff that decided to run to the hills rather than working with her.

Jamie Kern Lima, on the other hand, is a self-made entrepreneur that took the time to reach toward a master's degree in business administration from Columbia Business School. She has done every job to survive from bagging groceries at a store to have a parallel life to Meghan's in TV shows and then TV news.

But moved on to create her own job and company despite every bank rejection. And perseverance paid off when given the opportunity to sell her products at QVC.

She didn't marry up to a rich jet setter guy and decided how to use him as platform to create a job to keep her occupied. She created herself as a businessperson on her own and from the bottom up. I'm sorry to let you know that, for me, Meghan and her homemade jams and previous modeling and acting jobs can't compare to Jamie Kern Lima's strong will to persevere despite every bank closing door to her ideas.

One struggled and succeeded, the other prints her name with the acronym HRH, part of a branding goal and part as an act of showing superiority even though that title was acquired via marriage to a now non-working UK royal.

I looked it up. The match was intended to benefit "Sentebale", but got negative news because of accusations that Harry was selling this to Netflix. Plus, the controversy between Meghan and the Sentebale chairwoman.
It is such a pity, they could have handled the whole case so much better. They have to understand doing work for charity is a noble thing, but it has to be separated doing commercial business to earn money. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Prince Harry scores goal in charity polo match as Meghan, Netflix cameras look on

Prince Harry scored a goal in a charity polo match as his wife, Meghan, and cameras for a Netflix miniseries looked on.

apnews.com

Harry crossed the line without thinking on the consequences. The lady CEO from the charity was right, in term of taxes a non-profit charity event can't be recycled into a Netflix show that will solely put the money into Harry's piggy bank as part of the 100 million Netflix deals. Mainly because Harry is with one royal foot on a non-profit and the other one is on a pile of money from Netflix.

Per her explanation, the original Polo event was cancelled when the venue owner found out Harry was bringing Netflix cameras into the charity event. Thus, that venue owner won't receive payment from Harry nor Netflix for their property being on a TV show and even worst, then the expenses they gave the charity could not be later claim into the tax form as a charitable contribution, since Netflix used same event for profit.

And not to mention she did bring up a big issue, people need to consent to be filmed for a TV show-for-profit, Harry invited the TV crew in and a tennis celebrity as the most normal thing to do.

Poor planning, no communication and a lot of indifference toward everyone involved that put that event together for Harry to be grandstanding on a stage, his favorite place lately.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I do feel there will be an overhaul in the coming years - when the Kents, Gloucesters etc are no longer around. That may the time to cut the titles and HRH to children of the monarch and the family of the eldest grandchild of the monarch. I see that being the best case to allow Charlotte and Louis to represent the family but no titles for their children etc

The way the Sussex family have used their connections for commercial use is ridiculous. But the time to fix this issue is after unfortunately Charles and older royals have passed and it is slimed down.
It is next level that they wanted their children to be titled as well once Charles became King - why??? They live in America, where there is no need for titles and they will never carry out duties. In fact I don't even think the children will visit the UK ever.

So what happens to the Sussex children’s titles when William becomes king? Honestly, I’m still more concerned about Harry’s place in succession and therefore his kids than the meaningless titles to those of us who live in the US.

 

[Prinsara]

So what happens to the Sussex children’s titles when William becomes king?

Same thing that happened to Peter and Zara, or Bea and Eugenie (who’ve had royal parental issues), or Louise and James; aka, nothing?

Getting someone out of the LOS is almost impossible, other than converting to Catholicism or being one of the first 6 (they may not be at some point) and making an unapproved marriage.

 

[Toledo]

So what happens to the Sussex children’s titles when William becomes king? Honestly, I’m still more concerned about Harry’s place in succession and therefore his kids than the meaningless titles to those of us who live in the US.

First thanks for the likes above, I expanded it more as people were reading my comment. Sorry!

Re the Sussex children - I predict they will join the historical ranks of hundreds of adjacent untitled royals because I doubt Harry and Meghan will get their way with William as they have done with his father.

Yes, it will be scandalous, but in my old country Spain Felipe had to do the same to his sister and remove her title. King Abdullah did same to his half-brother who attempted a coup a few years back. William can use that as a precedent even when it's different countries: You become disrespectful of your titles, then titles get vacated. That simple.

 

[Curryong]

Everyone seems to be counting on William coming to the UK throne within a year or two. That is certainly not written in stone to say the least. There are certain types of cancers that can be managed and treated for years if not decades.

And whatever happens to relatives of foreign monarchs the only time such removal of royal titles occurred was in 1917 in the midst of WW1. The recipients of the LP had been traitors to Great Britain by serving a foreign power (Germany). What strictly traitorous action has Harry performed to spur on the removal of his titles? Attempted a coup? Joined the Russian or Chinese armed forces? Spoken to foreign powers about the workings of MI5? No.

And as far as this latest kerfuffle is concerned? Allowed his wife to use the styling of HRH when writing on a gift card to a friend over a year ago? Well, if he did, that is. We don’t know if Harry even knew about the gift.

He himself hasnt ever signed notes or spoken of himself as HRH. since leaving the UK. I doubt he’d be bothered about the Sussex titles going. He’d still be Prince Harry and the son of a King, and will be to his dying day. Just as his wife, who takes her status from him, would be Princess Harry and the daughter in law and sister in law of British monarchs while she remains Harry’s wife, which may very well be for life.

And I note that on that latest podcast there is a little handwritten note from Meghan to the woman’s young daughter that is signed ‘Miss Meghan’. Are onlookers and commentators going to work themselves up into a rage about that?

As for William removing the Sussexes’ titles, as a poster observed some time upthread, there have been assertions that the Sussex titles are about to be removed since 2020. When William comes to the throne, which may well be a decade or more in the future, he will have a thousand things more on his plate than removing his brother’s titles, given by their grandmother.

And personally, if William is allowing friends to speak ill of his brother and sister in law to an online gossip blog like The Daily Beast, that is a remarkable development in a man who has always valued privacy and keeping quiet about relatives above almost everything else in his life.

Personally, I think that like many gossip columnists, including people like Neil Sean, Sykes gets all sorts of comments and rumours from KP, old Etonians and elsewhere, and runs with it all in his articles. What is written in The Daily Beast is not verifiable fact and is not truth.

 

[Ghost]

As much as I dislike the middle finger she showed to the RF by using HRH, I don’t think anyone will remove anything.
Removing the titles - either the RH or the ducal peerage or both - would put into question the very base of a monarchy.

The birth right.

To imply that they don’t deserve the titles would put into question the birth right that is the foundation of succession. If someone is deemed unworth of their titles, then who “is worth”? Based on what criteria?

 

[Alison H]

As much as I dislike the middle finger she showed to the RF by using HRH, I don’t think anyone will remove anything.
Removing the titles - either the RH or the ducal peerage or both - would put into question the very base of a monarchy.

The birth right.

To imply that they don’t deserve the titles would put into question the birth right that is the foundation of succession. If someone is deemed unworth of their titles, then who “is worth”? Based on what criteria?

All this came up in 1688, with the "Social Contract" argument that the monarch had obligations to their subjects and that therefore James II could be removed because he'd broken the "contract". It was then conveniently forgotten, because, as you say, once you go down the line of removing people based on their unworthiness, it becomes very dangerous for a hereditary monarchy.

 

[pieve]

I think what's being discussed in the media regarding the Sussexes' titles is the title of Royal Highness. At least, that's what's being discussed in my country. Our media reported Diana's situation after her divorce. The Queen stripped her of her Royal Highness title.

Here's what we read in our newspapers:
After her divorce in 1996, the Queen granted her the right to retain the title "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy title without a predicate.
She lost her Royal Highness title and became Diana, Princess of Wales, a purely honorary distinction. However, she is better known in France as Lady Di.

My conclusion is therefore that it is possible to strip the Sussexes of their Royal Highness title. Only that one.

 

[Ghost]

I think what's being discussed in the media regarding the Sussexes' titles is the title of Royal Highness. At least, that's what's being discussed in my country. Our media reported Diana's situation after her divorce. The Queen stripped her of her Royal Highness title.

Here's what we read in our newspapers:
After her divorce in 1996, the Queen granted her the right to retain the title "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy title without a predicate.
She lost her Royal Highness title and became Diana, Princess of Wales, a purely honorary distinction. However, she is better known in France as Lady Di.

My conclusion is therefore that it is possible to strip the Sussexes of their Royal Highness title. Only that one.

Ach, but for Diana the HRH was acquired through marriage, not a birth right. When the marriage ended, the title ended. And it wasn’t even mechanical, Diana herself renounced the title in order to have a bigger settlement. Sarah divorced a little earlier and the HRH stayed, Sarah lost it at the same time as Diana.

 

[Hallo girl]

Everyone seems to be counting on William coming to the UK throne within a year or two. That is certainly not written in stone to say the least. There are certain types of cancers that can be managed and treated for years if not decades.

And whatever happens to relatives of foreign monarchs the only time such removal of royal titles occurred was in 1917 in the midst of WW1. The recipients of the LP had been traitors to Great Britain by serving a foreign power (Germany). What strictly traitorous action has Harry performed to spur on the removal of his titles? Attempted a coup? Joined the Russian or Chinese armed forces? Spoken to foreign powers about the workings of MI5? No.

And as far as this latest kerfuffle is concerned? Allowed his wife to use the styling of HRH when writing on a gift card to a friend over a year ago? Well, if he did, that is. We don’t know if Harry even knew about the gift.

He himself hasnt ever signed notes or spoken of himself as HRH. since leaving the UK. I doubt he’d be bothered about the Sussex titles going. He’d still be Prince Harry and the son of a King, and will be to his dying day. Just as his wife, who takes her status from him, would be Princess Harry and the daughter in law and sister in law of British monarchs while she remains Harry’s wife, which may very well be for life.

And I note that on that latest podcast there is a little handwritten note from Meghan to the woman’s young daughter that is signed ‘Miss Meghan’. Are onlookers and commentators going to work themselves up into a rage about that?

As for William removing the Sussexes’ titles, as a poster observed some time upthread, there have been assertions that the Sussex titles are about to be removed since 2020. When William comes to the throne, which may well be a decade or more in the future, he will have a thousand things more on his plate than removing his brother’s titles, given by their grandmother.

And personally, if William is allowing friends to speak ill of his brother and sister in law to an online gossip blog like The Daily Beast, that is a remarkable development in a man who has always valued privacy and keeping quiet about relatives above almost everything else in his life.

Personally, I think that like many gossip columnists, including people like Neil Sean, Sykes gets all sorts of comments and rumours from KP, old Etonians and elsewhere, and runs with it all in his articles. What is written in The Daily Beast is not verifiable fact and is not truth.

I agree as far as the Daily Beast is concerned , I find it very difficult to believe that William is passing on titbits to such an organisation, in fact to anybody. you are probably correct that the author has connections in that world.
As far as I can see the author is speculating just as we are on here.
The problem around the Sussex's at the moment are the ' sources' , we know that they use certain media outlets to give out their side, so when sources say the HRH is used privately among friends, we are inclined to believe it. Maybe they need to stop the ' sources' nonsense and if they have something to say then just say it. In fact maybe they should just keep quiet and get on with building a business brand on their own merits not on the back of titles, stop all the drip drip of gossip.

As for signing a note ' Miss Meghan' is that not a bit ' Gone with wind. '

 

[Alison H]

As for signing a note ' Miss Meghan' is that not a bit ' Gone with wind. '

That's exactly how it sounds!

 

[An Ard Ri]

It turns out that Meghan's With Love series was not filmed at her Montecito home but was instead filmed at her friends,Tom and Sherrie Cipolla mansion.
Many of the kitchen items such as the kettle,apron ,glasses and cookware are all available for sale on Amazon too!
Meghan Markle's kitchen items: From her chic kettle to the $10 Amazon apron

 

[Hallo girl]

That's exactly how it sounds!

I should not be surprised as Meghan lives in a film, whether it be walking down the aisle like Maria from Sound of Music, or attending Ascot like Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady. Her other role is Wallis Simpson at the Oprah interview or attending the St Pauls for the Jubilee, nothing in her life is real, it is all borrowed, copied or pretend. Even the wedding dress had nothing original about it, it was nice but not in the least bit original, possibly the veil.

 

[Toledo]

All this came up in 1688, with the "Social Contract" argument that the monarch had obligations to their subjects and that therefore James II could be removed because he'd broken the "contract". It was then conveniently forgotten, because, as you say, once you go down the line of removing people based on their unworthiness, it becomes very dangerous for a hereditary monarchy.

If William becomes the person in charge of the royal family in the next five years, or less, he will become the most popular king by removing the tools, the titles, that Harry and Meghan use in the USA as a marketing device to put themselves on the news. They have insulted family and country and from what I read the people in the UK are fed up with them parading as UK royalty in the USA without showing any respect toward the UK.

When was the last time king Charles celebrated his grandchildren in person after they left the UK? How about never. They have both embraced the California madness of using victim status to promote themselves and only themselves. Take the Sussex title away, the princess and prince to be lady and lord for the children and life gets normalized.

 

[Toledo]

It turns out that Meghan's With Love series was not filmed at her Montecito home but was instead filmed at her friends,Tom and Sherrie Cipolla mansion.
Many of the kitchen items such as the kettle,apron ,glasses and cookware are all available for sale on Amazon too!
Meghan Markle's kitchen items: From her chic kettle to the $10 Amazon apron

I've seen that juicer, or knock off, at our local supermarket. It's one of those hanging on a metal strip clipper, by the aisle multiple displays, that you see by utensils and plastic containers section.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I've seen that juicer, or knock off, at our local supermarket. It's one of those hanging on a metal strip clipper, by the aisle multiple displays, that you see by utensils and plastic containers section.

People I know that are fans of H&M will be disappointed when I break the news that its not filmed at her Montecito home and were admiring all the cooking utensils too!

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I agree as far as the Daily Beast is concerned , I find it very difficult to believe that William is passing on titbits to such an organisation, in fact to anybody. you are probably correct that the author has connections in that world.
As far as I can see the author is speculating just as we are on here.
The problem around the Sussex's at the moment are the ' sources' , we know that they use certain media outlets to give out their side, so when sources say the HRH is used privately among friends, we are inclined to believe it. Maybe they need to stop the ' sources' nonsense and if they have something to say then just say it. In fact maybe they should just keep quiet and get on with building a business brand on their own merits not on the back of titles, stop all the drip drip of gossip.

As for signing a note ' Miss Meghan' is that not a bit ' Gone with wind. '

The “Miss Meghan” is a common thing in the southern US at least, for very young children to call an adult who isn’t a relative but a very close friend of the family or perhaps a preschool/music/ballet teacher. It’s a way some parents teach their children to respect their elders usually in some position of authority - again, mainly a teacher. When I taught music to very young children I was called “Miss ….” However, children of friends usually called me by my first name. I was brought up to call any adult Mr/Mrs/Miss. As an adult, I was glad whenever Mrs/Miss was dropped (in business, at least) in favor of Ms.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

But she using the title. So ticking off her friend for referring to her as Meghan Markle and not Sussex was a plant. All this drip feed is so typical of her, drip drip every day until now we know she has been using them all the time. Even the photograph of the gift card was from last year, so we-are being told.
She is a manipulator alright.

You know, I think you’re right about the plant and that it was rehearsed. If it had been truly a gaffe, we wouldn’t have seen it - it would have been edited out. Even the camera showing Mindy’s reaction

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Ach, but for Diana the HRH was acquired through marriage, not a birth right. When the marriage ended, the title ended. And it wasn’t even mechanical, Diana herself renounced the title in order to have a bigger settlement. Sarah divorced a little earlier and the HRH stayed, Sarah lost it at the same time as Diana.

There is precedent for monarchs demoting born royals as well, without Parliament needing to act.

Princess Patricia of Connaught became Lady Patricia Ramsay on marriage in 1919.

Some members of the British royal family lost their British HHs, and some German relatives lost their British HHs and British princely titles, when George V issued the letters patent (and associated royal warrants) to slim down royal titles in 1917. (The fact that the Germans disregarded the 1917 letters patent and continued using their British titles anyway does not change the fact that they were stripped according to British law.)

The abdicated Edward VIII was demoted from HM King to HRH Prince. His abdication obviously involved parliamentary legislation, but Parliament wasn't involved in his change of title.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

And precedent or not, no reputable authority has ever argued that the monarch cannot remove royal titles.

This is hypothetical, as I do not believe the King or Government are interested in removing royal titles. But they legally have the authority to do so.

 

[pieve]

There is precedent for monarchs demoting born royals as well, without Parliament needing to act.

Princess Patricia of Connaught became Lady Patricia Ramsay on marriage in 1919.

Some members of the British royal family lost their British HHs, and some German relatives lost their British HHs and British princely titles, when George V issued the letters patent to slim down royal titles in 1917. (The fact that the Germans disregarded the 1917 letters patent and continued using their British titles anyway does not change the fact that they were stripped according to British law.)

The abdicated Edward VIII was demoted from HM King to HRH Prince. His abdication obviously involved parliamentary legislation, but Parliament wasn't involved in his change of title.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

And precedent or not, no reputable authority has ever argued that the monarch cannot remove royal titles.

This is hypothetical, as I do not believe the King or Government are interested in removing royal titles. But they legally have the authority to do so.

I also note that Queen Elizabeth has asked the Sussexes not to use the title of Royal Highness without going through Parliament.

 

[taogg]

And personally, if William is allowing friends to speak ill of his brother and sister in law to an online gossip blog like The Daily Beast, that is a remarkable development in a man who has always valued privacy and keeping quiet about relatives above almost everything else in his life.

Such as? So Dr. Chandauka, who worked with Sentebale, was somehow “allowed” by William to criticise Harry? And I suppose the veterans upset by Harry disclosing how many people he killed in Afghanistan were also sent by William too? Right—because clearly everyone must be on his payroll.