Jump to content
IGNORED

Meghan and Harry 3: Working Towards Financial Independence


laPapessaGiovanna

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

There’s an interesting article in the New York Times comparing the SussexRoyal and Kensington Palace Instagram accounts. Basically, ever since the Sussexes almost caught up with the user number of the earlier account (which originally was for William, Kate, and Harry, and then added Meghan briefly), the KP account has added just enough new users to stay larger, without the new users correlating to the KP account’s posts. It looks fishy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/style/meghan-markle-instagram.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20200228&section=whatElse&campaign_id=9&instance_id=16347&segment_id=21707&user_id=df0ac689ce9dfd88f81d92b69113f68a&regi_id=69509990ion=whatElse

I think Harry and Meghan appeal to a new/different audience. Ever since their relationship has become public I noticed a lot more of US based people in comment section. I think for some H&M are a starting point, and they go on and follow W&K too. It would be interesting to see how many of the new followers both accounts have, actually follow both accounts. And what about BP? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have to wonder why they are not bringing Archie with them.  For his safety?  Idk. I think he'd be safer with his parents.  Not that I know, but, it does seem a petty move.  Are they withholding Archie from family?  He's the new baby, I'd want him to see his little cousins and family. This trip is The End of H&M's Royal duties.  I'm sure it's going to be a tense trip.  I couldn't leave my infant and personally feel babies are safest with their parents.  Maybe coronavirus worries?  If so, than they shouldn't go because they could bring it back to him.  

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a31175720/meghan-markle-prince-harry-trip-without-archie/

  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is probably very simple... jet lag is rough on adults, imagine how it would be for a baby. If they’re not planning on being in the UK for long, then I can see why they wouldn’t want to put Archie through that. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Confused 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The feeling that Archie will grow up mostly away his cousins as well as the other extended Windsor family children and not have chance to experience the unique Royal traditions, warm memories and just the feeling of being in a loud close knit often times Eccentric family is kinda sad to me. You Meghan’s family ain’t about that.  

9 minutes ago, viii said:

The answer is probably very simple... jet lag is rough on adults, imagine how it would be for a baby. If they’re not planning on being in the UK for long, then I can see why they wouldn’t want to put Archie through that. 

They took him to South Africa though and he was even younger.if they could do that You telling me they can’t let Charles see his newest grandson Not to mention the great grand parents? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They took him to South Africa on a tour, I think that’s a little different than his parents popping into the UK for a couple of days. I’m sure the Queen/Charles/etc are sad they don’t get to see him, but that’s the reality of long distance relationships. And let’s not pretend here - they all have the money and resources to visit any time they want. Charles could jet over to Canada if he really needed a baby fix. It’s not solely up to Harry and Meghan to make sure family members stay connected to Archie. 
 

As for Archie missing out on all the royal traditions... perhaps that’s exactly what Harry wants. Unless you’re the one living it, it might not be as warm and lovely as you envision it to be. 

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, viii said:

The answer is probably very simple... jet lag is rough on adults, imagine how it would be for a baby.

Having done long haul flights (10-12 hours, 4-5 time zones) with a child that was not quite a year old, I'd agree with this. It usually takes several days for the child to settle into the day-night routines again. Unless you're going somewhere for at least a week or two, putting yourselves through really this isn't worth it.

Yes, it's too bad that the Queen can't see her youngest great-grand, but she can do as many of her subjects do and use Facetime or WhatsApp. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s also the issue of a certain viral outbreak right now that makes more sense for Archie (and nanny) to stay put.

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, viii said:

They took him to South Africa on a tour, I think that’s a little different than his parents popping into the UK for a couple of days.

Their South Africa tour was 10 days. Their engagements in the UK run from February 28 until March 9, with Harry already in the UK and Meghan arriving any minute. So it’s not much of a difference in terms of how long Archie would be there vs South Africa.

2 hours ago, clueliss said:

There’s also the issue of a certain viral outbreak right now that makes more sense for Archie (and nanny) to stay put.

If that’s genuinely their concern, they should self-quarantine when they arrive back from the UK.

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, clueliss said:

There’s also the issue of a certain viral outbreak right now that makes more sense for Archie (and nanny) to stay put.

Well, that is true for his parents also. And somehow I doubt they will put themselves in a 14 day quarantine when they are back, before coming near him. 
 

I will give them a pass- Archie comes to the age where his day-night recognition will make bigger changes rather difficult. BUT I also think we will see them flying long haul soon again. If that’s ok, than the UK trip would have been fine too. I will hold out for this to criticise this particular decision. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may also be a matter of money. If they take him they'd likely want or have to take his nanny. Now that they're on their own, they may not want to lay out the $$$ for a seat for the nanny. It's amazing how economical people become when it's a matter of spending their own money.

They could buy Archie a seat to fly with them, but he can also still fly for free as a babe in arms. In that case, without a nanny, someone will be holding him for many hours of flying. Actually, even if he had his own seat, chances are he'd end up in a parent's arms or lap for most of the trip.

Speaking as a person who has done long haul flights with a lap child, it's not much fun. Even in first class, it would not be a picnic. Really, unless you're flying with a very young baby, such flights are a true test of parental endurance. Believe me.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah maybe. I just think these two are doing what they do best: Trying to be in control of everything  and being very very extra. 

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, leaving Archie in Canada smacks of punishment and power moves and really nothing else. I think Meghan will not hesitate to use Archie to manipulate and frankly, shame on Harry for doing his family that way. The BRF probably just needs to accept that Archie is basically lost to them, and will be even more so when Harry and Meghan inevitably divorce.

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope their statement that they were going to raise him to appreciate the royal tradition into which he was born was genuine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 9-month-old is still a very young child who shouldn’t be left without primary carer overnight unless in case of an absolute emergency. The nanny is certainly a familiar caregiver to Archie, but they are not a parent. So Harry and Meghan either choose to leave their baby with a non-primary carer for over a week for the second time within 2 months, or the nanny is the primary carer for their baby. And yes, I’d judge them for either choice.

There is no reason why a healthy married couple with significant wealth and no regular employment would not be the primary carers to their infant. And there is no reason why someone who has access to live-in childcare and all the possibilities in the world to travel safely and comfortably with their baby would leave their child behind for such an extended period of time.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2
  • Bless Your Heart 2
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you're judging William and Kate for leaving their children behind as well, then. 

And I assume you're meaning that parents should never go on holidays away from their children when they're young unless it's an absolute emergency. 

?

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of understand why they wouldn’t want to take Archie because of the long haul flight there and back. He has been on a plane before so maybe Meghan knows he doesn’t do well. I do think it is insane to leave a child that size, for that long, that far away, with the resources they have to take him, but okay I guess. He would probably spend the most time with the nanny during the duration of the trip anyway. I’m not saying that to be mean, it’s understandable if they’re going to be busy and working. Or maybe H&M are being spiteful and not letting the royal family see him. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a combination of the two or if there were several reasons.


That being said, I don’t think Archie is going to know the royals well at all growing up. In terms of cousin relationships, George/Charlotte/Louis will probably be closer and spend more time with Pippa Middleton’s son or Zara’s children. I’m sure they’ll bring Archie over there when he is older but probably only for Christmas once every few years. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, viii said:

I assume you're judging William and Kate for leaving their children behind as well, then. 

And I assume you're meaning that parents should never go on holidays away from their children when they're young unless it's an absolute emergency. 

?

Yes, I judge William and Kate for it too. It is weird and unnecessary to leave your 6/7-month-old to go on vacation to another country for a week, especially if you have a live-in nanny who can come with you and give you a respite from childcare whenever you want.

It's especially strange to do this twice in a period of 2 months.

And yes, the recommendations are that primary caregivers should not leave a child under 1 (or even older) over night/for several days in a row unless there is absolutely no way around it. It causes significant stress for such a young child and is likely to harm the development of attachment security if it occurs frequently.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that it's the mother or both parents who have to be with the baby over night. It can absolutely be just one parent or the father or someone else if the baby happens to have a non-parental primary caregiver such as a grandparent or sibling (see Duggars).

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SweetJuly said:

Yes, I judge William and Kate for it too. It is weird and unnecessary to leave your 6/7-month-old to go on vacation to another country for a week, especially if you have a live-in nanny who can come with you and give you a respite from childcare whenever you want.

It's especially strange to do this twice in a period of 2 months.

And yes, the recommendations are that primary caregivers should not leave a child under 1 (or even older) over night/for several days in a row unless there is absolutely no way around it. It causes significant stress for such a young child and is likely to harm the development of attachment security if it occurs frequently.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that it's the mother or both parents who have to be with the baby over night. It can absolutely be just one parent or the father or someone else if the baby happens to have a non-parental primary caregiver such as a grandparent or sibling (see Duggars).

 

W&K have not left their children for vacations. Only work trips. And they did not both go on foreign tours when the children were infants. George was 14 mths the first time they were both in tour without him.  Charlotte was nearly one and Louis was 17 mths. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Harry and Meghan aren't in the UK for a vacation - they're there for a work. I can't believe we're judging people for not bringing their child along with them on work trips. Sure they have nannies but why make a child suffer through the long flight and the jet lag if you can avoid it?

There are plenty of reasons to side eye Harry and Meghan but I just don't see how this is one of them. 

  • Upvote 9
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking on the theory that H&M left Archie due to concerns for the coronavirus, did anyone catch the article about kids who go to George & Charlotte's school are being tested the virus?

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-prince-george-princess-charlotte-coronavirus-school-20200227-xyly26i7kvbjpmm72e6bi2bfcu-story.html

 

While I do not wish any child ever to get something like this, if a royal child became infected, could we expect that their financial situation & "status" would expedite their safety & welfare? Wasn't there a famous basketball player who got Aids & was able to live a much longer and healthier life than others who have Aids who, basically, couldn't afford the healthcare. Magic Johnson? Or is that totally different? 

While we still don't know any about the virus nor how long the vaccines are going to take, it would be interesting how they would handle that type of situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kachuu said:

Speaking on the theory that H&M left Archie due to concerns for the coronavirus, did anyone catch the article about kids who go to George & Charlotte's school are being tested the virus?

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-prince-george-princess-charlotte-coronavirus-school-20200227-xyly26i7kvbjpmm72e6bi2bfcu-story.html

 

While I do not wish any child ever to get something like this, if a royal child became infected, could we expect that their financial situation & "status" would expedite their safety & welfare? Wasn't there a famous basketball player who got Aids & was able to live a much longer and healthier life than others who have Aids who, basically, couldn't afford the healthcare. Magic Johnson? Or is that totally different? 

While we still don't know any about the virus nor how long the vaccines are going to take, it would be interesting how they would handle that type of situation.

The coronavirus so far hasn’t been serious or had complications in children.  
And because of how it spreads and the incubation period, if they’re exposed they’ll expose him on their return unless they isolate him away from them for another two weeks. 

Edited by louisa05
  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, viii said:

There are plenty of reasons to side eye Harry and Meghan but I just don't see how this is one of them. 

Co-sign. Not seeing that leaving Archie behind is a big deal. I can think of two pragmatic reasons -- long haul flights with an infant + overall costs -- that could factor in and, for any other couple, would be accepted on their face.

Besides, where does this whole thing about being spiteful to the Queen come from? Is this a Daily Fail trope? I'd honestly like to know if either H or M actually said something along these lines.

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity and not that matters but I wonder if it’s just Archie and Nanny alone at their place in Canada or M&H have friends they are crashing with? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Out of curiosity and not that matters but I wonder if it’s just Archie and Nanny alone at their place in Canada or M&H have friends they are crashing with? 

I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it was reported that last time they left him in January, they left Archie with Jessica Mulroney. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kachuu said:

While I do not wish any child ever to get something like this, if a royal child became infected, could we expect that their financial situation & "status" would expedite their safety & welfare? Wasn't there a famous basketball player who got Aids & was able to live a much longer and healthier life than others who have Aids who, basically, couldn't afford the healthcare. Magic Johnson? Or is that totally different? 

While we still don't know any about the virus nor how long the vaccines are going to take, it would be interesting how they would handle that type of situation.


A student at Princess Estelle of Sweden’s exclusive school has tested positive and They closed the school for now . Several students live in infected areas and are in voluntary quarantine But been emphasized the Student is not the Princess. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.