Meghan and Harry 2: Now with Archie

[QuiverFullofBooks]

The part about the Royal Rota detailed in their statement (on the People website) is very interesting. I totally see their point on that. It’s an old agreement, they had no input into it, many of the publications have bad blood with Harry and his parents, and they can’t sell exclusive photographs for their own profit or charity. I wonder if they asked for permission to leave it and maybe were denied, so they just issued a unilateral statement that they wouldn’t do it anymore.

[Topaz]

3 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I just see parallels with the fundy families and rules, etc and no one says anyone has an obligation to keep in line with the family.

It sounds like they still want to be public figures but without the royal part, ignoring the fact that the reason they have the public profile is because they are royal. True Meghan was an actor but not well known enough to have this level of visibility.

The fundies they currently remind me of are Jinjer. They are doing the equivalent of moving to LA and thinking they are suddenly famous for something other than being Duggars. The breakout stars of the BRF maybe.*
 

*Maybe I am misjudging them and they are going to step away from public life and the media circus. If so, I’ll be happy to be proved wrong.

[tabitha2]

Fundie families are not being paid in huge amounts of Taxpayer money though. Fundie families don’t exist solely on the will of the Public and Survive by keeping the people happy. 

 

[Coconut Flan]

My view is that I'd never have an issue with any of the royals deciding to live a private life as long as they are funding that life.  In fact I rather admire the ones who do and don't seem to trade on their family relationship.  However, what I read of what Harry and Meghan plan seems problematic.  They live in granny's house and are supported by Harry's father.  Yet they seem to have come up with a plan to be basically part-time royals when they feel like it without discussing the matter with their two principal financial backers.  That's bound to create some conflict.  I feel like they should be told go do you or fulfill the role that Harry was born to and Meghan married into and at her age should have been able to comprehend.  I get it that press disturbed them.  The invasions of their privacy were ridiculous, but no worse than other royals have gotten.  If they want to be funded by someone other than themselves then I think they've really bungled the whole situation.

[Vivi_music]

6 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

My view is that I'd never have an issue with any of the royals deciding to live a private life as long as they are funding that life.  In fact I rather admire the ones who do and don't seem to trade on their family relationship.  However, what I read of what Harry and Meghan plan seems problematic.  They live in granny's house and are supported by Harry's father.  Yet they seem to have come up with a plan to be basically part-time royals when they feel like it without discussing the matter with their two principal financial backers.  That's bound to create some conflict.  I feel like they should be told go do you or fulfill the role that Harry was born to and Meghan married into and at her age should have been able to comprehend.  I get it that press disturbed them.  The invasions of their privacy were ridiculous, but no worse than other royals have gotten.  If they want to be funded by someone other than themselves then I think they've really bungled the whole situation.

I thought they said they wanted to be financially independent (meaning they will get their own lodging and won't be supported by the Crown's money anymore).

[Screamapillar]

Okay, this fake headline cracked me up though. ?

Spoiler

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Screamapillar

[Coconut Flan]

15 minutes ago, Vivi_music said:

I thought they said they wanted to be financially independent (meaning they will get their own lodging and won't be supported by the Crown's money anymore).

I'm trying to find the People article that had a lot of answers supposedly from Harry and Meghan.  Their definition of financially independent is not what is in most of our minds.  Initially they mean it as only not taking the 5% contribution to run their official palace staff.  That would still be taking 95% of the support of their official staff from Charles.  I'll keep looking for the article.

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-address-every-question-about-bombshell-announcement-see-them-all/

So far all they've addressed is the Sovereign Grant.  

They still plan to live in Granny's house.  If they do truly want to fund themselves fully then more power to them.  I don't think they really have a plan for how to do that.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Coconut Flan

[adidas]

1 minute ago, Screamapillar said:

Okay, this Onion headline cracked me up though. ?

  Hide contents

 

There was another one, I haven’t seen it myself but read about it somewhere. Apparently the Chicago Tribune said "Northwestern graduate moving closer to home after spending time abroad“ ?

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

It's interesting to see the reaction here, quite different than the "good for them for escaping" vibe on Twitter.

[adidas]

I am not being facetious here - genuine question. 
Let’s say they relinquish their royal titles (or HRH strips them, however they decide to spin it haha), they will no longer be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Which means all of the copyrighting and branding they’ve done on their website, social media etc ... and no doubt legally ... will be defunct. Right? Will they become Mr and Mrs Markle since Harry doesn’t have an official surname (though he has used Wales in the past)? Or will they pick up Mountbatten-Windor so that their surname matches Archie’s?

Somehow ‘Mountbatten Windsor Commoner’ or ‘Wales Civilian’ doesn’t have the same ring as Sussex Royal.

Im sorry, but I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. I defended her against the media’s claims when they first started saying she was hell on wheels behind the scenes, making Kate cry and turning over new staff like crazy ... but it seems she leaves a trail of destruction and broken relationships wherever she goes. Her relationships with her Dad, her siblings, her friends... Now Harry has admitted there is conflict with his brother and he didn’t even tell his father or Grandmother about these plans before announcing them. They must be so hurt  

[omilona]

93 year old Granny, Her Majesty QEII and 98 year old Grandpa The Prince Phillip, Duke of E deserve better than this from their grand son and this upstart. Sorry. This has nothing to do with her race  or nationality. She's a molotov cocktail that destroys anything in her path. Her relatives don't look so crazy right now. You do this without notifying the sovereign, OR the guy who you expect to continue funding you 95%. Off you go. No more tiaras for you. Charlotte darling, would you like to wear Granny's emeralds to preschool?

[WiseGirl]

Trying to figure out why this bothers me so much...this pretty much sums it up.... "They are TELLING Her Majesty their rules! They are trying to have the benefits of being Royals yet make and keep private profits."

Piers Morgan may have been right about her. “People say I'm too critical of Meghan Markle - but she ditched her family, ditched her Dad, ditched most of her old friends, split Harry from William & has now split him from the Royal Family,” Morgan tweeted. “I rest my case.”

You're not independent if your still getting money from family. 

[Blahblah]

Here’s another headline for you:

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/young-family-faces-criticism-after-choosing-to-no-longer-live-off-welfare/
 

 

[NancyDrewFan1989]

53 minutes ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

It's interesting to see the reaction here, quite different than the "good for them for escaping" vibe on Twitter.

A lot of the "good for them" vibe is coming from people who claim/believe the British royal family hasn't defended them like other royals. For example, Prince Andrew Epstein scandal, Harry defending Kate William not defending Meghan, and the William cheated on Kate when he didn't and a reporter was trying to make it big stories. There are many people who think that this will allow them to voice their opinions to the media involving causes they care about like wildlife and gender equality. In the recent past Meghan and Harry have been criticized for getting too political for royals in these causes. For example, a couple of months ago Meghan and Harry went to a gender equality meeting that many people viewed as feminist. In the meeting they discussed how to push forward the gender equality initiative. In the UK taking a stance like this can be viewed as a politically charged statement. There could be a rift with them and the royals over their choice to be active in activities that are viewed as political. 

Also there is NOTHING WRONG the promoting gender equality and wildlife preservation (they recently donated money to the Australian fire relief fund). I am just using those as examples. The Royal Family is not allowed to take positions in politics. It has been well known that Meghan was involved in feminist causes in the past. Once again there is NOTHING WRONG with being involved in feminist causes. But, she had to give a lot up full time to be a full time royal, not just a career in film. 

[acheronbeach]

1 hour ago, WiseGirl said:

You're not independent if your still getting money from family. 

"Financially independent," is codeword for selling the Monarchy, mark my words.

I give it less than a month before we see Duchess Meghan Exclusive Yoga Retreats, House Sussex brand tableware, Duke and Duchess of Sussex his n' hers baseball caps and bathrobes, House Sussex Approved restaurants, Master Archie Kidswear, etcetera.  

 

ETA: I think we got a tip-off about this with the massive list of products they included in their trademark application registered publicly last month.  

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1221682/meghan-markle-news-duchess-of-sussex-prince-harry-sussex-royal-foundation-trademark-list

These two better not come to Canada and commandeer our already underfunded, understaffed RCMP officers to protect themselves as they merch more shitty Soho House crap online.  

Edited January 9, 2020 by acheronbeach

[Karma]

With all of the recent brexit talk, I thought this headline was pretty funny.

[adidas]

1 hour ago, Blahblah said:

Here’s another headline for you:

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/young-family-faces-criticism-after-choosing-to-no-longer-live-off-welfare/
 

 

True story - I thought the NT News was the same type of media outlet as the Betoota Advocate. Then I visited Darwin ?

[Blahblah]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-harry-and-meghans-markles-absurd-definition-of-financial-independence/news-story/5ae272a38203fdf5cc17ef6e1aa8e47d
 

This. This sums up pretty much what I have been trying to say. They are bog standard, self-entitled grifters.

[just_ordinary]

Well, I cannot say I am that surprised? In the royal watcher community, Harry was already suspected to go over the edge when he had children of his own. Years ago when people and media went crazy over how much Wiliam and Kate restricted views of their children many argued that Harry would be worse. 
I get that he has been struggling with his role as Wiliam and his children because more prominent as the future of the BRF. 
He was the golden boy in the last 6 years. Coming off that high must be pretty uncomfortable too.

I have no idea if Meghan never understood what marrying into this family means or if she realised it isn't for her. 

It’s clear that they want to be humanitarian celebrities. And honestly, why not. But live off your own money. Harry is extremely rich in his own right. Fund your own staff and security and living accommodations. Give up your titles and don’t use this connection for your own gain. No one says they cannot maintain close and loving relationships with his side of the family.

I do understand why they prefer a more North American based audience. My prediction- they focus will not be on Canada for long. Their biggest fan base is US based.

Frogmore was a wedding gift and I would rather see it used a couple of weeks in the year instead of having it empty.

But jetting back and forth is not exactly the environment conscious solution is it. No matter how much good they do it will be never cancel out the damage it does. So many think hard about their way of living and travelling. That’s how you save the world. At least that’s what I believe.

They are basically taking the same level as the York sisters. But they get a lot of backlash for being financed by their father and therefore by the taxpayer. And they keep a pretty low profile. No tours for them that’s for sure.

Their whole approach reads like cherry picking. I would absolutely respect them for really going about this independently. That would give their actions significance and wouldn’t read like pouting.

I do hope they will not be allowed to use their coat of arms/titles/any innuendos to the royal family to make money of it. That’s frowned upon for good reasons  CP and his design firm are regularly criticised and he only uses his family name. In Harry’s case it would be Mountbatten-Windsor I guess? But they have started basing their surnames on their titles, Harry was Harry Wales and would be Harry Sussex now. 
Harry and Meghan Sussex doesn’t sound as catching as Sussex Royal though.

@HerNameIsBuffy this has little to do with tying the family line but more acting upon your employers act of conduct/doing the job you are paid for. If you are not ok with this you quit but than you don’t get paid anymore.
 

22 minutes ago, Blahblah said:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-harry-and-meghans-markles-absurd-definition-of-financial-independence/news-story/5ae272a38203fdf5cc17ef6e1aa8e47d
 

This. This sums up pretty much what I have been trying to say. They are bog standard, self-entitled grifters.

That sums it up! It raise all the points that should have been arranged before.

[Blahblah]

I’ve been trying to work out the ownership of Frogmore Cottage. It’s complicated. Technically it is owned by the Crown Estate which is an incorporated body. So it belongs to the Crown but is not part of the monarch’s private estate. Harry & Meghan are the current tenants, but not the owners.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

So am I correct in thinking that the “gift” of Frogmore Cottage was a gift of tenancy not a gift of ownership? And that tenancies can be broken? I’ve read that Charles intends to chuck Randy Andy and his offspring, as well as various other minor royals, out of their apartments in various palaces when he streamlines the royals. If H & M have stepped down, and buggered off overseas for the most part, I can’t see them keeping Frogmore Cottage for their own personal use when they feel like it. Unless they pay rent themselves maybe?

[LittleOwl]

11 minutes ago, Blahblah said:

I’ve been trying to work out the ownership of Frogmore Cottage. It’s complicated. Technically it is owned by the Crown Estate which is an incorporated body. So it belongs to the Crown but is not part of the monarch’s private estate. Harry & Meghan are the current tenants, but not the owners.

And they spent a fortune remodeling the place (and her engagement ring!).  

[tabitha2]

Hmm. I can’t see Charles throwing all those 80 and 90 year old relatives out on the street esp as they do pay rent and many of them have no other home Not to mention it be a huge scandal.   I don’t care about Andrew but William is close to his cousins and won’t like Charles booting them either.

[KnittingOwl]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

But jetting back and forth is not exactly the environment conscious solution is it. No matter how much good they do it will be never cancel out the damage it does. So many think hard about their way of living and travelling. That’s how you save the world. At least that’s what I believe.

This also really bothers me about the Sussex’s plan. They tell everyone else what to do to protect the environment, but then want to live between two continents? No. It doesn’t matter how many carbon credits you buy or trees you plant, you’re still causing damage with that kind of travel. 
 

Yael Stone, an Australian actress who was on Orange is the New Black, is giving up her US green card to reduce her carbon footprint. That’s how you set an example. Not the lecturing and “do as I say, not as I do” I see coming from Harry and Meghan. 

 

[acheronbeach]

8 hours ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

It's interesting to see the reaction here, quite different than the "good for them for escaping" vibe on Twitter.

I'm not surprised RE Twitter when it comes to MM and PH.  Camilla Tominey with the Telegram wrote last year about the evidence that a lot of MM related Twitter activity was by over 1000 "obsessively" supportive bot accounts from Russia. 

[nausicaa]

So my question is: why not talk to the BRF  before releasing this statement? Then they could gave ironed out details, made this less dramatic, and kept a cohesive front. What did they have to lose? Is it just impulsiveness? Or something else?

 

And to the Fundie family comparisons: I think a more apt comparison would be if John David renounced his role as a Duggar and no longer wanted to do publicity work for the family (a more than fair and understandable desire), but expected Jim Bob to keep bankrolling his house, supplying his job, and sharing proceeds from the show and appearances. That ain't how it works kiddies...