Meghan and Harry 3: Working Towards Financial Independence

[SweetJuly]

I'm going to go out on a leg here and say that neither the Queen nor Prince Charles or Prince William would ever take custody of Archie or any cousins' children unless in case of an utter emergency such as, heavens forbid, the parents of the child suddenly passing away. European Royal families are by default conservative and slightly out of touch, but they're not medieval in their practices.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I think this was already discussed on this thread.

 

Multiple times.

[just_ordinary]

If all this would probably only be pursued in regards to an heir or spare. Apart from that only if both parents wouldn’t be around anymore/completely unfit to parent at the time and even then I suspect in Archie‘s case he would live with Doria or a close godparent. With the publicity no court could give the guardianship to a relatives with no deep connection when there are close relatives available. Just imagine it. It would end the British Monarchy to pull such a stunt.  I am also pretty sure Meghan and Harry have set up something just in case. (While thinking about it- I think we need to do this too. Just in case).
As sad as the whole rift  is on a personal level (and we don’t know how big of a rift  there really is or how unhappy the involved parties really are- there is not much substance from all of them), Archie is basically meaningless for the BRF in terms of his status. Same would probably have become true even if they had stayed. There is no way a cousin will hold the importance and get the funding under a King George VII. as it is now the case. By stepping back from duties they just sped up the process. 

[louisa05]

3 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Multiple times.

The royal internet has decided it's true. So you cannot convince anyone otherwise at this point. One article I saw some time ago pointed out that if the law applied in modern times, the Queen would have had legal status in the custody agreements when her children divorced. She did not. 

[viii]

I had briefly wondered if Meghan was pregnant and that’s why they rushed to LA to be close to her mom, but judging from Harry’s comment about one child being enough right now, I’m guessing not!

[tabitha2]

Color me shocked! Actually A wise decision  from these two (if it holds) .They don’t need to add another child into the mix until they figure out their game plan. 

[just_ordinary]

Why did they have to sent a letter regarding their distaste and decision not to answer any questions from certain tabloids anymore? It just seems to pointless. Just stop answering the questions. Or give a SHORT decline for this and any further inquiries. No comment and no communication is a powerful tool. They should know by now that letters bring them trouble.

Which brings me to another letter:
They/their lawyers also released statements in their lawsuit. I am again pretty irritated. Her „friends“ put together this interview with People magazine without any knowledge from her (I don’t think that’s true but it’s not impossible) and then brought up the letter without her knowledge and if she would have known she would have not agreed to this. When the article came out they seemingly had no problem with it. And I am even more intrigued about those “friends“. Because the whole thing didn’t go down that well in the UK - you know the country she was supposed to become a citizen of and represent. It was yet another sign that they might not stay on the royal instead of the celebrity side of the sword. In general it doesn’t speak for her “friends“ to make anonymous interviews to an American tabloid all while they battle a fight of how much they want to share with the public. Sticking up for your friend shouldn’t be anonymous and before I spill information on someone I most definitely should let them in on it. Not backing your claims with a name/face makes the whole thing very unreal. Those people weren’t whistleblower, fearing for their and others health and safety. It was an interview to change a harsh and sometimes racist and unfair tabloid narrative. Very dramatic and completely over the top and maybe not even real that’s what I took away from the whole thing. Interestingly, people took it as one of the first signs that they might be pandering to a more USA based audience and even predicted that they would live in LA sooner or later.
The interview was a not so ideal idea made worse by how it was done. Now, they have to trip a fine line between not pissing of the „friend“ and blaming them so that they can get out of this. 
In the end, the tabloids will profit from this lawsuit either way. It’s a win-win situation for them.

[anjulibai]

I can totally see Meghan's friends getting together and going to the press. She seems to have a very tight group of people that are very protective of her, and I can see them feeling a need to respond to what they see as false claims by the tabloids. 

Which, given the other stuff released for this lawsuit, shows that a ton of lies were printed about what went down around the wedding around Thomas Markle. 

I don't think these friends will care, one way or another. 

I completely understand them putting a letter out saying they won't be working with those tabloids. Might even have to do with the lawsuit. 

 

[louisa05]

There was absolutely no need to have a spokesperson announce that they called the Queen for her birthday.  The only possible motivation was to get positive publicity.  And doing it after the palace announced that all family communication regarding her birthday would be private.....
As for the lawsuit stuff, I’ll reserve judgement until we see both sides. Their statement was designed to put them in the best light. 

[just_ordinary]

@anjulibai

I don’t get it though. They had made it clear numerous times that they don’t want to work with them anymore. In fact I don’t think they did since the SA tour. They explicitly stated that they didn’t want to keep up with the royal rota. Everyone knows how they feel about them. So what was the point? It’s basically old news. Why contact them with this letter and give them something to write about?

[clueliss]

Because it means that someone who stopped writing about them wrote about them.  Thus getting attention, any attention when. They wouldn’t have

[viii]

Or it has to do with their law suit. 

[anjulibai]

Yeah, I think it has to do with their lawsuit. It could come up later. None of the tabloids had to release it. 

[louisa05]

11 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

Yeah, I think it has to do with their lawsuit. It could come up later. None of the tabloids had to release it. 

Not sure how it could. Not communicating with these reporters now has nothing to do with the past. And they could have quietly instructed their spokesperson not to answer inquiries from those outlets.  
They publicized their private family video call to the Queen.  Buckingham Palace stated the day before that private family communication regarding her birthday would remain private. Four children and seven other grandchildren managed to abide by keeping the matter private.  It’s clear that these two, in spite of their claims to not want intrusions into their personal life, want as much publicity as possible. So, no, I don’t believe for a second that they had to send that letter due to the lawsuit.  Plus they’ve  sued press outlets previously with no need for this.  As have William and Kate. 

[hoipolloi]

An interesting analysis from The New Yorker, with some history thrown in:

Quote

 

As the ninth child and sixth son of George III, Augustus, like Harry, was never in much danger of succeeding to the throne, and felt burdened by the limitations of being a mere prince. Granted, these were cushy limitations: Augustus grew up attended by servants in royal residences. (When the Prince was a young man, his mother, Queen Charlotte, acquired Frogmore House, where, more than two centuries later, Harry and Meghan held their post-wedding party, with Idris Elba serving as d.j.) When Augustus was in his teens, he expressed interest in joining the Royal Navy or the Church of England, but his father never gave him permission to pursue either path—or any other profession. According to his biographer, Mollie Gillen, Augustus spent his youth travelling around Europe, falling prey to “the uncertainty and boredom” of a life with “no goal to aim for.”

Augustus wasn’t even free to marry without his father’s approval, thanks to the Royal Marriages Act, passed by Parliament in 1772, which stipulated that members of the Royal Family needed the monarch’s consent before they could wed—a legislative response to the fact that some of George III’s brothers had married women who were considered unsuitable to be queen, because they were widowed, illegitimate, or both. (The stipulation persists, in a modified form: in order for Harry to remain in the line of succession, he was legally obliged to seek the Queen’s approval for his marriage, though Markle’s status as a divorcée was no longer a deal-breaker.) Augustus felt the law’s force when, at the age of twenty, he secretly married Lady Augusta Murray, a noblewoman ten years his senior, in a ceremony held in Rome.

 

 

[nausicaa]

So today's Publisher's Lunch email announced the following:

"Dey Street Books will reportedly publish a biography of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle titled THOROUGHLY MODERN ROYALS: THE REAL WORLD OF HARRY AND MEGHAN by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand on August 11. The couple is said to have cooperated with the authors and provided an interview. The book was initially planned for June publication."

Am I just being BEC for being annoyed by this? I thought they didn't want to be "royals" anymore? Isn't that what this is all about? And why even participate in a biography to be published only a few months after maintaining you want to live as private individuals?

I feel like they're still all over the place with what they want. If they were in their early twenties I'd chalk it up to just not knowing who they are yet. But considering their ages, it really does seem like it's more about throwing some strange tantrum. 

[hoipolloi]

11 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

And why even participate in a biography to be published only a few months after maintaining you want to live as private individuals?

They need the money. It's highly likely the book will be profitable for them, between advances, exclusive excerpts, and all the PR.

For an even more interesting & well-written commentary on the BRF, check out this piece from some years ago by Hilary Mantel, who knows from royals.

[nausicaa]

18 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

They need the money. It's highly likely the book will be profitable for them, between advances, exclusive excerpts, and all the PR.

Aren't they getting money from his dad? I'm confused as to how all of this works financially, tbh. 

[tabitha2]

They don’t need the money. If they want to keep us the ultra lux Hollywood/Royal  lifestyle Indefinitely they will but not right now. Comes to the fact  They crave attention and it does not seem to matter where it comes from or even if it’s good or bad.

[hoipolloi]

4 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Aren't they getting money from his dad?

Reportedly, they are still receiving several millions of pounds a year from the Duchy of Cornwall, though it's not clear if that's a short-term or long-term situation.

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

They don’t need the money.

Actually, they probably think they do, regardless of your or my opinion. 

If they end up donating the proceeds of book sales to their charities, that would certainly contradict my opinion but I won't be holding my breath in the meantime.

[hoipolloi]

IANAL, and really know nothing about UK law, but this doesn't sound good for H & M's case against the Mail on Sunday.

Quote

 

The Mail on Sunday has won the first round of a legal battle against the Duchess of Sussex over the publication of a letter she wrote to her father.

The duchess is suing for breach of privacy and copyright infringement after articles reproduced parts of a letter she sent Thomas Markle.

The publisher denies the allegations.

On Friday it won its bid to have parts of Meghan's claim struck out. Her lawyers said the ruling did not change "the core elements of this case".

 

 

[viii]

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-share-brand-new-photo-of-archie-for-his-first-birthday/
 

Harry and Meghan release a video for Archie’s first birthday. Meghan is reading a story and Archie doesn’t seem to be here for it. He’s the spitting image of his dad. Those Windsor genes are strong. Meghan has a beautiful voice. 

[DalmatianCat]

10 minutes ago, viii said:

Meghan is reading a story and Archie doesn’t seem to be here for it. He’s the spitting image of his dad. Those Windsor genes are strong.

Yes, they are! The Cambridge’s released pictures of Charlotte for her birthday last week and she looks just like William!

Edited May 6, 2020 by DalmatianCat
Clarity

[tabitha2]

More aptly a mix of William the Queen and Lady Sarah Chatto. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by tabitha2

[viii]

Hope Emily Giffin enjoys her fall from grace.