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

[QueenMathilde]

I think any future children will be born in North America, not Britain.

On a side note what would be the nationality of any baby born in Canada? British? Canadian? I was always fascinated by the conspiracy theory surrounding Obama being born in Kenya - not because I thought it was true but I thought what difference would it make if it were? He'd still be American. Wouldn't he? Isn't the baby born from a mother who is a US citizen and a father who is from another country still a US citizen no matter where he was born?


Sorry for the ramble - snowed in today and bored.

 

[ACO]

Interpretation is what this all comes down to. I never saw a problem with how they handled Archie's birth and christening. I didn't care for the interview and thought it was a bit dramatic, but put it down to culture. Harry saying there were issues with William meant to me there were ups and downs. Like in all families. William has, I believe, said this himself at some point. This year, after the website was launched (which I thought was stupid but not awful), the first press statement by BP was equally stupid as far as I'm concerned. Months of talks is not early stages. If I were in Harry's shoes and I were trying to get things done, that statement wouldn't feel good. And it's not truthful.

And I really don't like that the entire blame for all of this is put on Meghan. Accusations here of keeping her son hostage? Of dropping him like a hat when he's no longer useful? Narcissism? Gold digger? She planned it all from the start? Dropping all of her friends, her family, etc? When I come here I expect a higher level than this!

While I agree it might have been smarter for them to come back to the UK as a family, we don't know why they didn't. There might be very good reasons for them staying there.

What I see however is people and press making a big fuss over things that aren't that important. And in let's say 10 years time, we might hear things that puts all of this in a different perspective. Like it did with Diana.

I agree with a lot of this. As said, we really have no idea what went on behind closed doors. Lots of assumptions and accusations. Will be interesting once it all settles down.

 

[Betsypaige]

To be honest: No. At least not Meghan.

I agree. Harry, absolutely - his family is here, and I think some honesty from him would go a long way in endearing himself to the public again. People are angry with him, but they still love him. It's different with Meghan - I think at this point many just don't care for her. She doesn't like the UK, it's pretty obvious - that's already bound to annoy people - and she's tried to change a 1000 year old institution. Not just one person has noticed that Harry has changed since meeting her.

I don't care if Meghan ever returns. I care about Harry and Archie.

It should be noted that being criticized is not the same thing as being trashed/bashed, either personally or in the media.

 

[Princess]

Concerning Archie: I read somewhere (don't remember where) that the Queen has custody of all her grandchilden (as well as the great-grandchildren) as long as they are underaged. Some very old law. Is that true?
I heard something like that also concerning other monarchies, but I don't know if this is still valid for nowadays.

 

[Gawin]

I think it’s unfortunate Meghan and Harry couldn’t have met maybe five years sooner because, to me, the stage of life Meghan was at when Harry came into her life dictated the pace of a lot of things surrounding their relationship. She was an actress in her mid 30s when she met Harry. Even very talented and well known actresses have spoken about how difficult it is for women in show business to find work after 40. Meghan’s acting wasn’t earthshaking and she didn’t have major connections in the business, so Suits was likely going to be the high point of her career. Equally as important, she was a woman in her mid 30s who, (I’m guessing based on the existence of Archie), wanted children.

So, that’s where she’s at when, out of the blue, Harry comes into her life offering solutions to her two most immediate problems - career and children. I’m not surprised she didn’t want to spend too much time digging deeper into what her life was going to look like as a royal given how appealing the superficial package must have looked. She didn’t have the luxury of time, and, as I’ve said before, Harry didn’t do the responsible thing and insist on a pre-marriage period of exposure to life in the UK and to the BRF and everything that goes with them.

So, in short order - fast marriage, baby ASAP, lots of big ideas about what kind of work she was going to do, and then a quick smash into the wall of reality in the form of the restrictions of British royal life and the ruthless British press.

I totally agree with those who think the couple could have given royal life more of a chance. I mean, two years is nothing given all the major life changes they went through. But I think for things to have really worked they would have had to agree to change their strategy to fit with the broader goals of the royal family. If they weren’t willing to do that then I think getting out fairly quickly was best for Harry and Meghan, as well as the institution itself.

This is a very well thought out post and I agree with it.

It may be that Meghan thought marrying a member of the BRF would allow her to bring attention to the causes dear to her heart (very commendable). But she miscalculated the degree of independence she would have, and - as you say - "[smashed] into the wall of reality in the form of restrictions of British royal life." She lost the freedom to exercise complete control over her life.

This might also explain her inability to ignore the intense media criticism and her desire to limit media access. Not only was her life controlled to a certain extent by others, so was her image. She'd been a popular social media influencer (a positive image) but now - thanks to the media - her public image was almost largely negative. I think Harry wants privacy from the media but I suspect Meghan wants control.

For a successful woman in her mid-30s this sudden loss of independence and control over her life and her image was probably too much, and not what she expected.

But it just boggles my mind the couple gave it less than two years.

 

[Hallo girl]

The picture's all over the Mail Online. But Piers controls that media and it's always going to be negative.


I don't know what she can do going forward to improve the media coverage on her. And there is going to be lots of it - this idea that quitting the royal family means the media goes away doesn't work. Ask any celebrity who gets bashed by them.


In the end she's going to have to chose the life of a celebrity complete with media coverage or the life of a private citizen where she shuns the spotlight.


I don't see any way for there to be both no matter what she does.


As I said before they can't sue everyone. I was reading nasty, negative articles about Bill Gates and he's supposed to be the king of philanthropy.

She has already chosen a celebrity life, so nots let kid on here.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Concerning Archie: I read somewhere (don't remember where) that the Queen has custody of all her grandchilden (as well as the great-grandchildren) as long as they are underaged. Some very old law. Is that true?
I heard something like that also concerning other monarchies, but I don't know if this is still valid for nowadays.

Ooh, I asked the same question. I was told it was a rule, not a law. Whatever that means. It is three hundred years old and it affects the grandchildren only not the great grandchildren. So it wouldn't apply to her and Archie but it would apply to Charles and Archie.


And I think she was able to put her foot down and make sure Harry, William, Beatrice and Eugenie were mostly raised by their fathers with the mothers getting visitation rights.

 

[Pranter]

She has already chosen a celebrity life, so nots let kid on here.

IF that's the case she's failing miserably at being a celebrity.



LaRae

 

[Lilyflo]

I'm not uncritical of Meghan but some posts here seem unduly harsh & full of evidence-free speculation about Meghan's motives and things she has supposedly said or done so maybe it's a good time to remind ourselves of what the Queen has stated personally about Harry & Meghan's change in situation:

"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.

I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.

I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family."

The Queen didn't have to say any of the above personally. A statement from Buckingham Palace would suffice but HMQ chose to emphasise personally the love, understanding & pride in Meghan's place in the family.

In future, their situation might be a success, a failure or a bit of both but if HMQ blamed Meghan for taking Harry away from his family & duty, you can be 100% she would not have issued such a personal statement as the one above.

 

[Princess]

Ooh, I asked the same question. I was told it was a rule, not a law. Whatever that means. It is three hundred years old and it affects the grandchildren only not the great grandchildren. So it wouldn't apply to her and Archie but it would apply to Charles and Archie.


And I think she was able to put her foot down and make sure Harry, William, Beatrice and Eugenie were mostly raised by their fathers with the mothers getting visitation rights.

"Perhaps one of the strangest rules in the royal rulebook has to do with the royal grandchildren. Technically, the queen has custody over Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Plus, when Meghan and Harry have their baby, the queen will have custody over that little one, too. According to Marie Claire, the royal rule dates all the way back to King George in the 1700s. Supposedly, King George had a bad relationship with his son, so he passed the custody law to make sure that he had control of his son’s children. The royal family never got rid of the law, which explains why the queen technically has custody today."
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...ustody-of-the-royal-great-grandchildren.html/

No clue if this is a reliable source

 

[QueenMathilde]

"Perhaps one of the strangest rules in the royal rulebook has to do with the royal grandchildren. Technically, the queen has custody over Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Plus, when Meghan and Harry have their baby, the queen will have custody over that little one, too. According to Marie Claire, the royal rule dates all the way back to King George in the 1700s. Supposedly, King George had a bad relationship with his son, so he passed the custody law to make sure that he had control of his son’s children. The royal family never got rid of the law, which explains why the queen technically has custody today."
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...ustody-of-the-royal-great-grandchildren.html/

No clue if this is a reliable source

There used to be a poster on this site - I think her name was luvesBertie - who knew all of this sort of stuff about the royals. She was amazing when it came to answering questions like this. But I haven't seen her post for years - she may be gone. Or not interested in the Sussexs.

 

[Ista]

There used to be a poster on this site - I think her name was luvesBertie - who knew all of this sort of stuff about the royals. She was amazing when it came to answering questions like this. But I haven't seen her post for years - she may be gone. Or not interested in the Sussexs.

iluvbertie is still an active and much valued poster on these forums, so you could PM her.

 

[Mbruno]

On a side note what would be the nationality of any baby born in Canada? British? Canadian?


Sorry for the ramble - snowed in today and bored.

I believe that, under Canadian law, any baby born in Canada is a Canadian citizen, unless his/her parents are neither citizens nor permanent residents and are employees of a foreign government or international organization. The Canadian members might be able to give further clarification.


I suppose the baby would be also automaticaly a British citizen by descent under UK law because Harry is a British citizen by birth. And he/she would also be considered a natural-born citizen of the United States (for the purpose, among other things, of being elected President of the United States for example) because Meghan is a U.S. citizen who "has been physically present in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday".

 

[QueenMathilde]

I don't see the point in suing all these papers like Tom Cruise used to do back in the day. Tom Cruise still got negative publicity. And he still does.


You're better off hiring someone who knows how to deal with the media.


And it's not just the media - as I said earlier nowdays it's people with twitter pages. Or Facebook pages. Or even TicToc. And there are loads of them lining up to bash them.



You can't sue everyone.

 

[Lumutqueen]

There used to be a poster on this site - I think her name was luvesBertie - who knew all of this sort of stuff about the royals. She was amazing when it came to answering questions like this. But I haven't seen her post for years - she may be gone. Or not interested in the Sussexs.

IluvBertie is still a very active and valued member of this site, and whilst she doesn't often come over to the Sussex threads, she posted in this thread just last week.

 

[Helen.CH]

I think their appearences in the Uk will depend very much on how things develop
both with the family, the public and media.
If the marriage goes rough and Meghan fears the influence of H. folks, she might want to avoid this and prefer to stay with him while in Britain.
On the other hand, I guess H. will not accept ongoing bad press about Meghan while they might find a way to treat him better after some time has passed, when he'd be back for patronages aso. I think they will then choose even to cut totally.
And of course it depends on how their idea of making money turns out.
With the RF I expect them to try and give an impression of how the two are still valued and show themselves together as often as possible. Though the Sussex' role as victims did not yet play well the RF will do a lot to avoid another DianaGate, HM's statement shows this obviously.
If the Sussex' agree to this, is another thing to wait& see, at the moment anything they've choosen seems rather silly but who knows.

 

[Lilyflo]

Re: bullies (not naming anyone in the public sphere but we know who the loudest, most vociferous are). I don't believe in appeasing bullies. I'd prefer to ghost them, ignore them & then use the law against them where appropriate. Appeasement of bullies means they've won control of others. That's not a lesson I'd want any young people to learn. Starve them of publicity, don't take their bait, choose your battle & then beat them.

 

[QueenMathilde]

IluvBertie is still a very active and valued member of this site, and whilst she doesn't often come over to the Sussex threads, she posted in this thread just last week.

I wasn't trying to put anyone on the spot. I just remember that whenever you had a question like this, she always seemed to know the answer. And not like the rest of us where we read it in an article somewhere - she seemed to know the actual answer.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that, yet again, a number of posts have been deleted in trying to keep this thread on track. This is not a platform to spout rumours about journalists, to discuss members of the Royal Family competing against one another, to make sarcastic one-liners, to discuss forthcoming television programmes, to perpetuate myths and legends or a general free-for-all to discuss anything vaguely related to Harry And Meghan.

The thread is primarily to discuss the technical fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are "stepping back" and the immediately related issues concerning that fact.

Please be reminded that if members have any questions about what they can and cannot post, they may contact a Moderator directly, rather than questioning Moderator actions within the threads.

Be mindful when posting of the fact that many members of TRFs wish just to read about the actual topic of the thread, not peoples' back and forth bickering or attempts to de-rail the thread with superfluous and unnecessary comments.

Thank you.

 

[Erin9]

I know we’ve already discussed this article by Rebecca English, but I thought this statement was so telling- and not in a good way- regarding the media:


“When I congratulated him on the happy news that he and Meghan were expecting their first baby while covering the tour of Australia in 2018, he just scowled.”


A good response would have been to just smile and say thank you. His response was a great way- on a small level- to turn media against you. (I’m not saying she turned against him, just that this would be a way to do it.)Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be personal towards her. Perhaps it was- and he didn’t like something she wrote. Regardless- the smart response would have been a positive one. That assumes this happened, but assuming it did- what a poor decision.

Given that Harry and Meghan, best I can tell, intend to continue to live a public- though non royal, life- they really need to think long and hard imo about who they’re alienating and how they want to handle adverse publicity. You can’t control the media; you can’t sue everyone. Then- there is social media- good luck there. They really imo need to learn not to read all the media.

In short- I’d re- think my PR strategy going forward. Because I don’t think a repeat of a similar nature is a good idea.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...uching-insight-Prince-Harrys-personality.html

 

[Betsypaige]

I know we’ve already discussed this article by Rebecca English, but I thought this statement was so telling- and not in a good way- regarding the media:


“When I congratulated him on the happy news that he and Meghan were expecting their first baby while covering the tour of Australia in 2018, he just scowled.”


A good response would have been to just smile and say thank you. His response was a great way- on a small level- to turn media against you. (I’m not saying she turned against him, just that this would be a way to do it.)Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be personal towards her. Perhaps it was- and he didn’t like something she wrote. Regardless- the smart response would have been a positive one. That assumes this happened, but assuming it did- what a poor decision.

Given that Harry and Meghan, best I can tell, intend to continue to live a public- though non royal, life- they really need to think long and hard imo about who they’re alienating and how they want to handle adverse publicity. You can’t control the media; you can’t sue everyone. Then- there is social media- good luck there. They really imo need to learn not to read all the media.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...uching-insight-Prince-Harrys-personality.html

I can’t figure out why he wasn’t beaming that anyone would have mentions his new baby - he should have been over the moon; instead it almost sounds as if he didn’t want the media to know anything about him.

I forget if I mentioned it when I originally posted the article, but this disturbs. Why? Why does he need to know? That’s unhealthy - and unproductive. If he happens to come across something, ok, but digging deep to discover what people are saying about you is different. Now I can see why Harry is so unhappy, but he’s bringing it all on himself ...

In recent years he had even taken to scouring online articles and the comments underneath.

‘If it’s being said about me, then I want to know it,’ he would say, pretending to hold a notebook and pen. ‘One day I would really love to have my own newspaper column so I can write the truth and tell people what I think.’

It wasn’t a healthy way, in my opinion, to approach the admittedly intense public interest in him. And I told him so.

 

[ashelen]

Concerning Archie: I read somewhere (don't remember where) that the Queen has custody of all her grandchilden (as well as the great-grandchildren) as long as they are underaged. Some very old law. Is that true?
I heard something like that also concerning other monarchies, but I don't know if this is still valid for nowadays.

100% right. I read that too, it comes from an old King that wanted to protect his grandkids because his son it was a mess

 

[CyrilVladisla]

They stripped Harry, who actually served, of his military titles. I wouldn’t blame him for not attending. But we shall see how it all plays out.

I can see them at Beatrice’s wedding.

If Prince Harry and Meghan come to Princess Beatrice's wedding, do you think that Master Archie will be left in Canada?

 

[ashelen]

I think it’s unfortunate Meghan and Harry couldn’t have met maybe five years sooner because, to me, the stage of life Meghan was at when Harry came into her life dictated the pace of a lot of things surrounding their relationship. She was an actress in her mid 30s when she met Harry. Even very talented and well known actresses have spoken about how difficult it is for women in show business to find work after 40. Meghan’s acting wasn’t earthshaking and she didn’t have major connections in the business, so Suits was likely going to be the high point of her career. Equally as important, she was a woman in her mid 30s who, (I’m guessing based on the existence of Archie), wanted children.

So, that’s where she’s at when, out of the blue, Harry comes into her life offering solutions to her two most immediate problems - career and children. I’m not surprised she didn’t want to spend too much time digging deeper into what her life was going to look like as a royal given how appealing the superficial package must have looked. She didn’t have the luxury of time, and, as I’ve said before, Harry didn’t do the responsible thing and insist on a pre-marriage period of exposure to life in the UK and to the BRF and everything that goes with them.

So, in short order - fast marriage, baby ASAP, lots of big ideas about what kind of work she was going to do, and then a quick smash into the wall of reality in the form of the restrictions of British royal life and the ruthless British press.

I totally agree with those who think the couple could have given royal life more of a chance. I mean, two years is nothing given all the major life changes they went through. But I think for things to have really worked they would have had to agree to change their strategy to fit with the broader goals of the royal family. If they weren’t willing to do that then I think getting out fairly quickly was best for Harry and Meghan, as well as the institution itself.

I couldn't say it better! You nail it! Add to the fact money, she had money but nothing compare with them and the power , I think that was a big help to be wanted to be with him. Still I think e wanted out before her, but I wonder how this saga will end He had everything prepeare for him, meetings, security, you name it, now he will be in charge. Will they be able to handle with the level of the Firm? Also It get me the fact about all this media saying she wasn't happy in England. Really? We did not listen her to say it but if it is any true in this Why she would come so often to England, in her mind she wanted to catch a British man! And she got the biggest fish!

 

[Bassoonist]

Diana and Fergie "quit" the royal family and the media attention got worse not better. The week before Diana died she was on the cover of six magazines when I was in the checkout lane including People and National Enquirer. All of them had negative headlines. The headlines didn't turn positive until the week after she died.


I think they should lie low for about six months. Get their bearings. She should stop with the charity visits which are being criticized anyway as competing with the royals. If she wants to do that she needs to coordinate with them.


They have until spring so it's no hurry.

I agree, they can't win right now so may as well settle in, buy a house, raise the baby and do not call paps to photograph you wherever you are. I think that coordinating with the royals is a good idea. They are the experts at that.

And, finally, don't read any press. Just don't.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I couldn't say it better! You nail it! Add to the fact money, she had money but nothing compare with them and the power , I think that was a big help to be wanted to be with him. Still I think e wanted out before her, but I wonder how this saga will end He had everything prepeare for him, meetings, security, you name it, now he will be in charge. Will they be able to handle with the level of the Firm? Also It get me the fact about all this media saying she wasn't happy in England. Really? We did not listen her to say it but if it is any true in this Why she would come so often to England, in her mind she wanted to catch a British man! And she got the biggest fish!

I don't know - she wanted to be an actress and got married to a producer. I don't think she would have married Harry at all at that stage in her life.


If the rumors are true she wanted to marry a British man when she married Harry.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Is the Royal portrait released earlier in the New Year which only included The Queen, Charles, William, and Prince George the real reason Prince Harry and Meghan stepped back?
http://dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-harry-tells-queen-leaving-21251780

 

[QueenMathilde]

If Prince Harry and Meghan come to Princess Beatrice's wedding, do you think that Master Archie will be left in Canada?

I don't think they'll ever take Archie back to the UK. It occurs to me that Meghan knows about the rule that says the Queen gets to have say over what happens to her grandchildren so that's the last the Queen or Charles will see Archie.


I don't know that Meghan will ever go back either. I think that Harry will if these occasions come up.


We'll see what they do.

 

[Betsypaige]

Just to prove again that it's not just the UK with crass tabloids, the NY Post/Page Six outdid itself with this article.

Seriously? Even if Charles did say that about Harry when he was born, exactly how is this at all relevant? Of course this is all from Andrew Morton's book, big surprise. I thought Diana said that she thought Charles was a good father?

Anyway, whatever happened in the past, I don't think anyone is questioning Charles in this regard. This is the kind of thing that Harry and Meghan can expect to see in trash tabloids (no one considers the NY Post to be a serious newspaper anymore.


https://pagesix.com/2020/01/22/did-harrys-relationship-with-prince-charles-influence-megxit/

 

[Betsypaige]

I find it hard to believe that Archie won't ever return to the UK - or that the Queen or Charles or anyone else will never see him again. That would be Harry essentially telling everyone to flip off...and I don't want to go there.

Well I read that version too. That the Queen and Charles told Harry he wasn't going to be included in a "slimmed down" monarchy. That they were discussing how they could have a life outside of the royal family when the Sun found out what they were up to and were going to print a story about it ahead of their announcement. But that Harry and Meghan rushed the release of the statement so that they could beat the Sun to their story.


But if this were true I'd think the Sun would print a story saying that all this happened. Did they? I don't read the Sun.

Charles deliberately has made it clear to Harry that he was going to be part of the slimmed down monarchy; whether his son chose to hear it is another story. Honestly, IF that photo triggered Harry, he needs to get over himself......