Royal Insight Forum

Welcome to Part 2 of the Sussex Family General Chat. Discussion of Frogmore Cottage should be in this thread. Thank you.



Harry and Meghan evicted from Frogmore Cottage by King Charles after Spare memoir - and Prince Andrew could be moving in | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21548936/harry-meghan-evicted-frogmore-cottage-king-charles/)
Not surprised!!

^^^I'm sorry but I have serious reservations about The Sun's article. Until we receive some official notification regarding the status of Frogmore Cottage, as far as I know it's still the Sussexes' home in the UK.

Now I do believe that at some point Andrew will have to leave Royal Lodge Windsor as it requires too much maintenance and renovation. There has to be a smaller property for him to reside in on the Windsor estate.

I don't see Charles "evicting" the Sussexes.

All about Frogmore Cottage, Harry and Meghan's UK home | House & Garden (https://www.houseandgarden.co.uk/gallery/frogmore-cottage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-home)

QuoteThe house is still owned by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who used ?2.4m of taxpayer money to renovate the property, before paying it back in full when they moved to California. The news of the tax refund came in the wake of confirmation that the couple signed a multi-million dollar contract with Netflix, and reports that they are no longer receiving funding from Prince Charles, as they were when they first left the UK. Even though they have bought their family home across the pond, Frogmore Cottage does remain their UK residence.

King Charles is 'evicting Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11805205/King-Charles-evicting-Harry-Meghan-Frogmore-Cottage.html)

King throws Harry and Meghan out of Frogmore and offers keys to Andrew, says report - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-throws-harry-meghan-out-29340049)

I don?t believe the FC eviction story either. It probably comes from a story that the Sussexes are having a sofa and another couple of pieces of furniture from FC shipped to California, which apparently began with a Twitter post from some staffer on the Sun. And for the Sun, two and two added up to eight. If BP or the Sussexes make some official type statement then I?ll believe it. Until then, No.

And re Andrew I?ve always understood that he had a 75 year lease for Royal Lodge, signed after the QM?s death. Would the King be able to break the lease in that way by cutting his Duchy of Lancaster allowance? It would have to have been cut to the bone for this sort of a story to be true.

And Andrew has had money coming his way for years from friends and has an extremely wealthy son in law. The finances in the York family are a mystery, but I find it hard to believe, also, that neither the Queen nor PP left any of their younger children with no financial position from their personal fortunes.

I'm not sure this the right thread but The Telegraph is also reporting the story. Discussions have been going on for a while but The King wants Harry and Meghan to move out and apparently they're not very happy about it.

King asks Duke and Duchess of Sussex to move out of Frogmore so Prince Andrew can move in (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/01/king-asks-duke-duchess-sussex-move-frogmore-prince-andrew-can/)

Archive: King asks Duke and Duchess of Sussex to move out of Frogmore so Prince Andrew can move in (https://archive.ph/sIEwu)

what do they want FC for?  THey  are never going to live there permanetly again and it seems silly to leave it empty.  I dont know if Andrew is likely to leave his house, but if he is agreeable, as its a large house, FC seems a better fit for him.  Its a reasonable size, big enough for And and Fergie, and its in a safe area. 

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 01, 2023, 11:28:24 AM
what do they want FC for?  THey  are never going to live there permanetly again and it seems silly to leave it empty.  I dont know if Andrew is likely to leave his house, but if he is agreeable, as its a large house, FC seems a better fit for him.  Its a reasonable size, big enough for And and Fergie, and its in a safe area.

It doesn?t appear that Andrew is agreeable as by all accounts he is resisting. It?s hardly likely that he would want to live cheek by jowl with Fergie in a five bedroom house after the roominess of Royal Lodge. They have a lot of dogs as well, and a horse apparently.

And as Andrew has already spent approx 7 million pounds on improvements to Royal Lodge in the last two decades (he?s on a 75 year long lease) in the expectation that RL would be his home for life, Charles will probably have to reimburse him for those expenses as well as reimburse the Sussexes for the 2.4 million they shelled out for the refurbishments/improvements at FC that the media howled about for two years, as well as the rent for FC they have shelled out for the next year..

The prospect of Andrew and Harry suing the Crown Estate in court for reimbursements (so they can buy homes in or around London or Windsor) would be a delicious thought for the media I?m sure. That?s the sort of thing that may well encourage Fergie into writing her own book. She has nothing to lose by it.

To add onto the last thing I said, since they paid a three year lease because I didn't think about this part. They need to be paid back every penny that they paid to into renting that place.

So much for it being a gift but if that's how Charles wants to roll, fine. Just make sure that they get paid back every cent for the rest of the months that they aren't able to use it. You want him gone, fine but they shouldn't be paying for Andrew's place to live.

So, run them their money.

I didn't but Curryong summed it up perfectly. It didn't matter if it was being used or not by them, just as the royals have a bunch of homes they don't use but own but They paid a 3 year lease, the Crown took their money and are now kicking them out. So, if funds were given, the house needed to be held.

Fine. As long as you pay them back what was paid. I'll look forward to seeing that in future breathless coverage of this.

The lease is yearly, March 2022 to March 2023, but according to Omid they have until early summer to move out their belongings. The couple paid back the GBP 2.4 Million of the Sovereign Grant because of the public collective outcry, they lived there for only 6 months.

I agree the couple can lease elsewhere, but IMO it would be a costly mistake (in ref to Harry's case with HM Home Office) with no 'fixed' security as there is in crown estates in use by the BRF, which is limited to basically BP, SJP, KP and Windsor estate.

Alternatively, the broadsheet and tabloid, and Omid could all be wrong, and the couple have decided to relinquish the lease, which legally one has to notify (or the crown estate too, which seems to be the ploy to downgrade Andrew who will apparently also lose his royal salary GBP 250K/year, which translates to more than enough to pay yearly 'domestic' service as per labor law with a 30 room mansion, without that money, he should accept FC).

^ Correct. The house was a gift, they were just given extra money to make the upgrades they wanted. The Queen didn?t ask them to pay for these changes when they were initially given the house.  They only paid back the money when there was public outcry about them choosing to leave after they?d been given so much money for the upgrades.

And those gifts can be rescinded at the discretion of the monarch. I?m sure Charles will reimburse them if he has to break their lease so Andrew can move in. It?s not like he?s hurting for cash. And I don?t really see why this wouldn?t occur. It?s not like they visit the UK regularly. It would probably be the best option for everybody moving forward.

Andrew does not need a 30 bedroom estate. He?s lucky if he even gets FC after the humiliation he?s brought to the BRF and the UK as a whole.

we dont know what is happening, Andrew may wish to find somwhere smaller, but he will require compensation for the money he shelled out. Im sure that they can sort it out among themselves and find a workable solution.

As it appears that this story is true, I am certain that KCIII and his advisors are viewing these actions with an eye to the future to cover full time lodging for the DoY and occasional visits to the UK from the D/DssoS. Also this would have covered any possible long term financial effects for the Windsor Estate. To be honest, I expect that these decisions were being discussed for some time now as Charles had been starting to attend more meetings regarding the Duchy of Lancaster in the recent years prior to his mother's passing. After the Queen's death in September, then as soon as Charles and his advisors received a full accounting of all of the properties on the various estates, the plans were being put in motion. Honestly, I don't see the publication of Spare being the motivation to end the Sussexes' and DoY's leases and make the moves at FC.

1. The Sussexes- With the Sussexes established in California full time, the family's time in the UK will be limited to official events and future personal visits. I believe that anytime that the Sussexes and their children visit the UK for an official event, that there will be accommodation offered to them either in London or in Windsor. Currently no one is residing at Windsor Castle, so that might be where they'll be housed in one of the apartments. If it's a London based event, then accommodation at BP, SJP or KP would be available for them.

2. The Duke of York-  No doubt Charles will always have lodging available to his brother. Now Royal Lodge Windsor appears to have become a "money pit" so rather than continuing work there, any current project would be completed and the building would be closed rather than continue any future ones.

Having Andrew move into a newly renovated and smaller residence on the estate will provide him with a long term housing solution.

it depends on if Andrew wants to do that.  he has a long lease, and now, with his royal life finished, he may feel that he does not want to leave the home where he is secure, and its a lot cheaper to let A live there with the ring of security round Windsor, than to pay for private security for him outside Windsor. He could possibly share the house with family, if one of his daughters wanted to live with him and divide the house into 2 lodgings, depends on whether that is feasible.  Or he might shut up some of it and go on there.

Frogmore Cottage seems like it would be the perfect solution for Andrew as it's still on the Windsor estate with all the necessary security.  It's newly renovated and would have more modern heating, plumbing, electrical and any prior issues with the building's soundness would have been addressed.


We know that Royal Lodge is larger and requires more very expensive work. IMHO it's better to ensure that the property's exterior is made sound ie roof, windows and then close it up.

Charles is a money making machine (fact, doubled the DOC, is about to do the same with the DOL, has already done so with private estate Sandringham and I bet Balmoral will follow with his ideas of agriculture, farming, letting, etc), I'm almost sure he will get a private tenant for the royal lodge, just like Fort Belvedere (Galen Weston, Canadian billionaire lives there and has the privilege of the fixed security at Windsor estate)

Also, one last add on, Andrew would greatly benefit from ''several shared domestic workers of Windsor Castle'', cleaners and gardener.  What more, he's against the wall situation, IF Andrew doesn't move, he will lose everyone with this grace and favor cottage whilst 99 percent of the planet are pinching here and there cost of living.

Galen Weston died in 2021. His widow lives there as (like Andrew?s) the couple took it on a long lease, not that that seems to mean anything anymore. She?s elderly though and the couple?s children are adults.

Quote from: wannable on March 01, 2023, 01:47:22 PM
Also, one last add on, Andrew would greatly benefit from ''several shared domestic workers of Windsor Castle'', cleaners and gardener.  What more, he's against the wall situation, IF Andrew doesn't move, he will lose everyone with this grace and favor cottage whilst 99 percent of the planet are pinching here and there cost of living.

The ?grace and favour cottage? that was a wedding gift from the Queen, a gift that has been snatched back by Charles, just as she approved Andrew?s Royal Lodge lease, that Andrew will lose. And Harry and Meghan didn?t share ?the services of the domestic servants at WC,? so why would Andrew?

And rather than a private tenant William and Kate and family may get Royal Lodge. As well as all their other homes. Great PR for the monarchy in a country with growing homelessness and ever rising mortgage rates among ordinary people.

Quote from: wannable on March 01, 2023, 01:27:22 PM
Charles is a money making machine (fact, doubled the DOC, is about to do the same with the DOL, has already done so with private estate Sandringham and I bet Balmoral will follow with his ideas of agriculture, farming, letting, etc), I'm almost sure he will get a private tenant for the royal lodge, just like Fort Belvedere (Galen Weston, Canadian billionaire lives there and has the privilege of the fixed security at Windsor estate)

I agree. I believe that he and his team of advisors have been long eyeing how to make the estates and the properties on them more sustainable and profitable. If someone with the ready income wants to take on the work for RLW, then that's likely to happen.

Why Has the King Evicted Harry and Meghan from Frogmore? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv3CsfM3CCM)

QuoteKing Charles has evicted Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage, in Windsor - the couple's only home in the UK - and offered it to Prince Andrew, according to the Sun.

It?s understood that Buckingham Palace issued the eviction notice just days after the release of Harry's memoir.

It?s thought that the Sussexes are drawing up plans to ship their belongings to the US, as they?re kicked out of the five-bedroom house, which was a wedding present from the Queen.

The news comes after reports that Andrew was also being evicted from his mansion - Royal Lodge, which has a 98-acre estate, as the property is expensive keep, and Charles is planning to cut Andrew's ?249,000 annual allowance.

It?s thought that Andrew is against the move to Frogmore.

When the pair stepped down from their royal duties in 2020, Harry and Meghan paid back the ?2.4 million of Frogmore renovations to the taxpayer, and renewed their lease in May 2022.

It?s unknown whether they plan to fight the eviction.

It had been said, they had until the start of summer but now it's changed to after the coronation.

So what it sounds like is being said, "come to the coronation protected so we don't look bad and then don't come back."

They could've just told him not comeback, no need to it push back when in the end, you're taking their home that they paid went for back. Unless, all Royals are going to downsize to just having one home, it didn't matter if the Sussex's were there or not, they were paying for it.

But, I'm at the point. of whatever. Pay them back for what they paid for and pack them back money already paid on the lease and call it a day.

Quote from: Curryong on March 01, 2023, 01:53:13 PM
The ?grace and favour cottage? that was a wedding gift from the Queen, a gift that has been snatched back by Charles, just as she approved Andrew?s Royal Lodge lease, that Andrew will lose. And Harry and Meghan didn?t share ?the services of the domestic servants at WC,? so why would Andrew?

And rather than a private tenant William and Kate and family may get Royal Lodge. As well as all their other homes. Great PR for the monarchy in a country with growing homelessness and ever rising mortgage rates among ordinary people.

Basically it is, Andrew could find himself looking for an 'outside' property, which is worse, no security.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 01, 2023, 02:06:28 PM
It had been said, they had until the start of summer but now it's changed to after the coronation.

So what it sounds like is being said, "come to the coronation protected so we don't look bad and then don't come back."

They could've just told him not comeback, no need to it push back when in the end, you're taking their home that they paid went for back. Unless, all Royals are going to downsize to just having one home, it didn't matter if the Sussex's were there or not, they were paying for it.

But, I'm at the point. of whatever. Pay them back for what they paid for and pack them back money already paid on the lease and call it a day.

I think its more complicated,
IMO Harry finished blowing it to bits with his I want a public apology to 72 hours ago I want a private apology. Either way, IF the couple show up at the coronation, they can say they received an apology from Charles, William, Camilla and Kate by changing his status of how he wants his apology.  The BRF have catched up on the Sussexes con artist ways.

With no home base and Omid notifying his followers on a weekly basis invitation status from his masters. 

This is bigger and I believe tied to whatever ties Harry has with the constitutional monarchy, hearing with HM Home Office, as priority IMO notified to Charles to stop it in its tracks, no more oxygen for drama, the apology change is so queen drama soap opera, the King can't continue with monarchy bent it's knee on a mad crazed son who admits to alcohol and drug abuse (yet). It will be the end of Charles...unfit to be king, can't even handle the crown estates, and so on. Cleaning up.

Harry and Meghan are 'stunned' after being evicted from Frogmore Cottage | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11807171/Harry-Meghan-stunned-evicted-Frogmore-Cottage.html)

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle leaving Frogmore Cottage is 'private family matter' | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/20230301165596/meghan-markle-prince-harry-evicted-frogmore-cottage-prince-andrew-to-move-in/)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64812549

King Charles's decision to evict Harry and Meghan leaves Royal Family 'appalled' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1740872/king-charles-prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-latest)

Prince Harry and Meghan left 'stunned' by King's decision to evict them from Frogmore | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1740976/prince-harry-meghan-markle-news-frogmore-cottage-stunned)

Prince Harry and Meghan to be evicted from Frogmore Cottage as King hands it to Andrew | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1740766/prince-harry-meghan-markle-evicted-frogmore-cottage-king-charles-prince-andrew-dxus)

Harry and Meghan 'stunned' and two other royals 'appalled' by Frogmore eviction, says pal - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-harry-meghan-stunned-two-29342207)

Inside Frogmore Cottage as Charles 'evicts' Meghan and Harry to move new royal in - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/inside-frogmore-cottage-charles-evicts-29340749)

King Charles's four-word explanation to Meghan and Harry for kicking them out of Frogmore - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charless-four-word-explanation-29342717)

King throws Harry and Meghan out of Frogmore and offers keys to Andrew, says report - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-throws-harry-meghan-out-29340049)

Harry and Meghan's 'eviction' is 'just beginning' of Charles' money saving, says expert - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghans-eviction-just-beginning-29343753)

Meghan Markle & Prince Harry ?given Frogmore Cottage eviction orders just 24 hours after Spare was published? | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21556208/frogmore-cottage-eviction-hours-after-spare/)

Meghan Markle and Harry 'stunned' by King's 'cruel punishment' over Frogmore eviction that 'cuts them out for good' (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21552079/meghan-markle-and-harry-stunned-frogmore-eviction/)

Prince Andrew is 'resisting' move to Frogmore Cottage for crucial reason after Meghan Markle and Harry evicted | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21555235/prince-andrew-resisting-frogmore-move-eviction/)

Inside royal homes and destinations where Meghan Markle and Harry could stay after being evicted from Frogmore Cottage | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21553026/inside-royal-homes-harry-meghan-eviction/)
If Harry and Meghan visit UK both will slept at Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace chosen not Frogmore don?t you remember in Harry?s memoir book says late Queen Elizabeth decline both lived at Windsor Castle

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry break cover for night out in LA after Charles evicted couple from Frogmore Cottage | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21552167/meghan-harry-night-out-frogmore-eviction/)

I?m a royal expert - Meghan and Harry may skip coronation for key reason after being evicted | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21551040/meghan-markle-prince-harry-skip-coronation-expert/)

Meghan Markle and Harry 'stunned' by King's 'cruel punishment' over Frogmore eviction that 'cuts them out for good' (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21552079/meghan-markle-and-harry-stunned-frogmore-eviction/)

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 01, 2023, 02:06:28 PM
It had been said, they had until the start of summer but now it's changed to after the coronation.

So what it sounds like is being said, "come to the coronation protected so we don't look bad and then don't come back."

They could've just told him not comeback, no need to it push back when in the end, you're taking their home that they paid went for back. Unless, all Royals are going to downsize to just having one home, it didn't matter if the Sussex's were there or not, they were paying for it.

But, I'm at the point. of whatever. Pay them back for what they paid for and pack them back money already paid on the lease and call it a day.

Honestly that makes sense to have them finish the move out while one or both might be present in the UK. They or one of them can be there to do a final walk through once all the moving is completed.
As to any future visits to the UK for official business ie: Well Child, Smart Works etc...personal reasons, the couple will very likely be offered lodging at one of the London based palaces or at Windsor Castle. They'd be assured of a secure lodging that way.

There was bound to be some reassessment of the various properties after the passing QEII and it didn't make sense to keep Andrew at the huge RLW property. Five bedroom FC is more than adequate for himself and Sarah if she chooses to remain there. Their daughters and their families have their own homes now.  Also with the Sussexes no longer choosing to reside full time in the UK, they now will no longer have to pay for an annual lease of FC. That in and of itself is a win for the couple IMO.

Quote from: Curryong on March 01, 2023, 01:53:13 PM
The ?grace and favour cottage? that was a wedding gift from the Queen, a gift that has been snatched back by Charles, just as she approved Andrew?s Royal Lodge lease, that Andrew will lose. And Harry and Meghan didn?t share ?the services of the domestic servants at WC,? so why would Andrew?

And rather than a private tenant William and Kate and family may get Royal Lodge. As well as all their other homes. Great PR for the monarchy in a country with growing homelessness and ever rising mortgage rates among ordinary people.

How has it been snatched back?  We dont know what is happening, and in any case, Harry hasn't lived there for over 3 years and rented it out to Eugenie for a time. Its not a good idea for a house to stand emtpy and since the Sussexes are most unlikely ever to go back to live in the UK, what do they want it for?   A house on a royal estate can't be let to just anybody so it is just sitting there, empty, and unused

Even if it was ?snatched back,? the monarch is no longer Elizabeth; it?s Charles. He can choose to manage the properties owned by the Crown as he sees fit. I think it?s definitely in keeping with him wanting to limit the number of people that are being maintained by tax payer dollars.

I will admit that my opinion on whether this current news is good or not is based on my own feelings on Charles? strategy of cutting the fat, if you will, on the number of people considered ?working royals.? As in, I wholeheartedly agree with it. Andrew no longer is and neither is Harry, both for vastly different reasons obviously, but still, there?s no need for the former to have a huge estate to maintain and I don?t see why the latter would require a ?home base? if he?s hardly ever in the UK. When he is, he can be a guest at any number of homes that his father has access to.

I would also see no PR problem with the Prince and Princess of Wales (the future monarch and his wife) receiving access to a property that once housed a disgraced royal that?s been booted out literally and figuratively. Andrew whining about not being able to enjoy access to this vast estate is not something I see getting a massive amount of sympathy from people.

andrew does not have a huge estate.  He has a house and I suppose gardens and stabling but its not as far as I know an estate.  ANd he's not going to be booted out.  he may be pressed to downsize, but that is quite another matter.

Maybe it?s the small country bumpkin in me, but I?d say a 98 acre plot of land, complete with gardens, stables, and a 30 bedroom home qualifies as an estate. The king can ask him to leave if he wants to, and you?ll not find many people that would shed a tear for Andy and Fergie.

Andrew was coddled by the Queen, in my opinion. He?s an older man with no children living at home, I don?t see why FC would be that ridiculous of an option for him. I won?t even discuss Fergie because why would she be even a factor of consideration? She?s been mooching for years and it hasn?t exactly kept her quiet.

If this were to happen, I?d say it is something that would greatly benefit Meghan and Harry. It would sever their ties with the UK and allow them to move forward without having to be brought up again from the perspective of having access to royal properties.

I didnt realise it was so big but still I'd call it a farm rather than an estate. And well no, Charles can't ask people to leave when they have a lease.  He would have to get Andrew to give up his lease and probably pay him back for the  work that ANdrew's had done on the house.

^ All of which he is perfectly capable of doing if he doesn?t want Andrew living there. Furthermore, if he cuts Andrew?s allowance, whether Andrew wants to remain or not could be a moot point. It?s expensive keeping up these estates, and he may not have an option but to move to a smaller home.

Charles seems to be setting a trend. Lovely to have you be part of the family, but there?s no reason that the Crown needs to be supporting all of these people. The slimmer, the better, in my opinion. He likely won?t cut off anyone completely, but I can see Charles slowly chipping away at the privileges they enjoyed under the Queen.

Harry may have done Charles and future kings a favor. I won?t include Andrew in that because his reason for stopping royal duties is not a favor for anyone since he?s still drawing funds. But maybe the core family (monarch, heir and co) being the working royals is what the future will look like.

but why do it?  WE dont know what Andrew's income is, or what money he has from Charles, and if Andrew does not want to give up the lease he may demand a lot of financial compensation.. and he is entitled to some since he improved the property.  Andrew MAY be willing to give up the place but I doubt if he will go without financial compensation... He might prefer to stay where he is and close up some of hte rooms, and I dont think Charles will want a legal fight.  He may not want to pay out a lot of money to ANdy for the money that Andrew spent.

That?s the point; it?s not about what Andrew does or doesn?t want. It?s about what Charles wants. I?m not privy to what he will decide, but I do see trends and reports of what he planned to do once he became king. He doesn?t seem to favor huge allowances and privileges to second and third sons and daughters. It?s an expensive estate to maintain. He might decide to cut his losses, pay Andrew an undisclosed sum from his own personal funds, cut Andrew?s allowance from the Crown, and give him an option of a smaller home that he can now maintain.

FC would be as an good option as any because it?s already been renovated.

And then again, this could all be completely fictional and a rumor that arose from nowhere.

It is partly waht Andrew wants.  Charles is in charge of the Crown estates but ANdrew has a lease which gives him the right to live in that house foor 75 years.  If Charles wants him out, he will have to break the lease and pay compensation.

^ Which he is fully capable of doing. It?s not like Charles is hurting for money. He is fully capable of absorbing that hit. It?s all about whether this is something he wants to see happen or not.

This could be totally made up and Charles doesn?t care where Andrew lives. Something tells me where there?s smoke there?s fire, but maybe I?m wrong about that.

But if this report is true, Charles is fully capable of executing it. If nothing else, by limiting Andrew?s options.

But this thread is about Harry and Meghan, so I think the conversation should remain focused on their current lease of the house and the consequences that stem from that. And again, he can buy out their lease, too.

If Charles is not bothered about money, why would he want Andrew to leave the house?  As things are, I think it would cost him a lot to get Andrew out, and it would be cheaper to leave him there.  ANdrew has to live somewhere, and he has put a lot of effort and money into Royal Lodge. so if C has ot pay back all that money and buy out the remains of the lease, he's going to be handing out a lot of cash, just to get Andrew out of the house where he is not doing any harm and has a right to live until the lease runs out.

Charles felt he had to act as king rather than as a father

Rebecca English

Harry and Meghan had received the eviction notice 11th January 2023 (1 day after Spare) to today, 49 days and counting, from today 48 hours after Harry had media announced his change of wanting an Apology from Public to Private (all for evil reasons!)

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 01, 2023, 05:32:48 PM
If Charles is not bothered about money, why would he want Andrew to leave the house?  As things are, I think it would cost him a lot to get Andrew out, and it would be cheaper to leave him there.  ANdrew has to live somewhere, and he has put a lot of effort and money into Royal Lodge. so if C has ot pay back all that money and buy out the remains of the lease, he's going to be handing out a lot of cash, just to get Andrew out of the house where he is not doing any harm and has a right to live until the lease runs out.

I can?t say why, as I said before, I don?t know what Charles? end game is. The original debate was to whether he was able to do this and I said he is fully capable of doing this legally if he wished to pursue that option.

Omid Scobie
@scobie
Says a spokesperson for Harry and Meghan: "We can confirm The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been requested to vacate their residence at Frogmore Cottage."

Makes sense. Even if Andrew doesn?t move in,  there really is no need for them to have a home on a royal estate.

As their outing with paps last night, they aren't devastated or cruel Charles as the Omids and PeterHunts say.

They already packed during Netflix filming. Meghan and Harry film every bit and piece of their life. The house is empty with yet the boxes or already moved.


There are more still pictures all over social media.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqKFw81WYAAT_9Q?format=jpg&name=small)

I'm copying this because this person summed up, better than I can say why, whatever extra they put into the house, needs to be paid back.

Frogmore was going to be renovated regardless of who lived there. It had become dilapidated, and as the head of the Crown Estate, it was the Queens' responsibility to get it up to standard (which she did not do) Harry and Meghan paid back the $3M CE renovation cost, which included things like a new roof, pipes, electrical, etc. Then they paid out of pocket for all of the cosmetic work and their own touches (kitchen, flooring, paint, etc.) which were not included in the nearly $3M cost of the renovation. So my point is that if Charles is going to kick them out then hand the property to someone else, Harry  and Meghan should be compensated for the cost of the items that they paid for themselves. The $3M they paid back to the Queen should never even have been accepted (especially since it didn't go back to the taxpayer nor did it reduce the following years budget at all) but now it's really shady to evict Harry and Meghan when they literally put all of the money into upgrading and maintaining that place.

It doesn't matter if they stayed there or not. They paid a lump some up-front for rent and etc. Pay them back whatever extra cost and then pay them back whatever portions of the rent.

Also, seeing as the public doesn't live with them, nor do any fans or RR.

The photos doesn't prove that they moved everything, it proves that they packed up and moved what they were taking in the moment.

Omid Scobie says Frogmore Cottage is Harry and Meghan's 'only space in UK' that meets security needs | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11808849/Omid-Scobie-says-Frogmore-Cottage-Harry-Meghans-space-UK-meets-security-needs.html)

Charles had to act as king: REBECCA ENGLISH reveals why King backed move to evict Harry and Meghan | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11808829/Charles-act-king-REBECCA-ENGLISH-reveals-King-backed-evict-Harry-Meghan.html)

MAUREEN CALLAHAN: 'Eviction' is the greatest gift to Harry and Meghan - they love playing the victim | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11809367/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-Eviction-greatest-gift-Harry-Meghan-love-playing-victim.html)

As Charles  'evicts Prince Harry and Meghan', FEMAIL reveals glimpse inside Frogmore Cottage | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11807083/As-Charles-evicts-Prince-Harry-Meghan-FEMAIL-reveals-glimpse-inside-Frogmore-Cottage.html)

Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Told to Vacate UK Home, Frogmore Cottage (https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-requested-vacate-frogmore-cottage-uk-home/)

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle focus on family in California after shock Frogmore eviction | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230301165678/prince-harry-meghan-markle-evicted-frogmore-cottage/)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64815383

Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage, spokesperson says | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-have-been-requested-to-vacate-frogmore-cottage-spokesperson-says-12823182)

Duke and Duchess of Sussex are asked to vacate their UK home | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/01/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-are-asked-to-vacate-their-uk-home)

Dr Shola warns King his Frogmore move 'will backfire' as he brands Charles a 'weak coward' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1741095/dr-shola-king-Charles-frogmore-eviction-prince-harry)

King Charles decided to evict Sussexes 'just 24 hours after Spare hit shelves' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1741206/King-Charles-prince-harry-memoir-spare-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage)

Prince Harry and Meghan's 'eviction' is 'just the beginning' of King's money-saving drive | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1741142/prince-harry-meghan-markle-eviction-Charles-money-saving)

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry break silence as they confirm Charles has evicted them | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1741184/meghan-markle-prince-harry-vacate-frogmore-cottage-archewell-latest)

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-01/harry-and-meghan-requested-to-vacate-frogmore-cottage-say-sussexes

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle break silence after King Charles evicts royals - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-prince-harry-meghan-markle-29349067)

Harry and Andrew learning they won't 'get what they want' under King Charles, says expert - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-andrew-learning-wont-get-29347050)

King Charles draws up 'range of options' to deal with disgraced brother Andrew - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-range-options-dealing-29347293)

Harry and Meghan's 'Frogmore eviction' is 'possible sign' they won't attend Coronation - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghans-frogmore-eviction-possible-29347504)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21556043/harry-meghan-frogmore-king-charles-piers-morgan/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21562105/harry-meghan-frogmore-eviction-royal-family/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21561732/harry-meghan-break-silence-evicted-frogmore-cottage/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21562752/harry-meghan-charles-coronation-frogmore-cottage/

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWdbRn8XkAAvshJ?format=png&name=small)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWdbSICXkAAV5gW?format=png&name=small)

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 01, 2023, 10:06:31 PM
I'm copying this because this person summed up, better than I can say why, whatever extra they put into the house, needs to be paid back.

Frogmore was going to be renovated regardless of who lived there.

Consent to carry out internal alterations to create four houses from the existing three houses and two flats Open for comment icon
Frogmore Cottages Frogmore Windsor SL4 2JG

Ref. No: 09/00042/LBC | Validated: Friday 09 January 2009 | Status: Decided

TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE COUPLE GOT MARRIED, 8 years after the above mentioned remodelling, not delapidated but a new conversion from 5 to 1 home

Consent for various internal alterations, a single storey rear canopy and single storey rear extension to the studio to form 3 x three bedroom dwellings and 1 x one bedroom dwelling with associated parking and a new footpath. Open for comment icon
3 And 4A And 4B And 5 Frogmore Cottages Frogmore Windsor SL4 2JG

Ref. No: 18/01216/LBC | Validated: Wednesday 02 may 2018 | Status: Decided

Single storey rear canopy and single storey rear extension to the studio to form 3 x three bedroom dwellings and 1 x one bedroom dwelling with associated parking and a new footpath
3 And 4A And 4B And 5 Frogmore Cottages Frogmore Windsor SL4 2JG

Ref. No: 18/01215/FULL | Validated: Wednesday 02 may 2018 | Status: Decided

https://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

^ The request comes from Windsor Castle.

If you click on the Ref. No. 18/01215 and the other one 01216 full and lbc you can see all the details and planning Windsor Castle wanted for the Sussexes. As you can see there are 6 more planning applications requested by the couple to add in the above original requests already married; 2 Oct 2018, 3 April 2019, 1 June 2019, all were approved by the borough.

Can anyone tell me what the validity of Omid?s relationship with the Sussexes? It sounds like Charles asked them to vacate the house after Harry?s book came out in January. Omid says they were left ?stunned.? I?m not sure how much stock I can put on this. How could they be stunned that he asked them to vacate the house after what they?ve said about how dangerous the UK is for them and their open and blatant criticisms of the family?

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 01, 2023, 11:21:13 PM
Can anyone tell me what the validity of Omid?s relationship with the Sussexes? It sounds like Charles asked them to vacate the house after Harry?s book came out in January. Omid says they were left ?stunned.? I?m not sure how much stock I can put on this. How could they be stunned that he asked them to vacate the house after what they?ve said about how dangerous the UK is for them and their open and blatant criticisms of the family?

Honestly I don't know anymore. At times I feel that Omid Scobie is a trusted "confidante" and at other times I get the sense that he's no longer as well linked as he wants us to believe.

I find his comment that Frogmore Cottage was the only "secure" space for them in the UK to be odd. If  they were to stay at BP or WC, they'd be well protected.

QuoteOmid Scobie has claimed King Charles' decision to evict Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from their grace and favour Royal residence in Windsor leaves them without a home in the UK where they will be safe.

Scobie, a royal author who penned the Sussexes' biography, railed against the eviction of his friends from Frogmore Cottage - a five-bedroom mansion set a stone's throw away from the principal residence of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

He argued that, although Harry and Meghan travel with a private security team, Frogmore Cottage's location within the security perimeter of the Windsor Estate meant it was the only place in the UK they could feel truly safe, given they were deprived of dedicated Royal protection.

Absolutely. Yeah, I get the sense that he uses them to seem like he?s a lot more well-connected than he actually is. I think they used him when they were getting their story out under the table, but now that they?re doing it themselves, I don?t know that he?s truly an insider or no more than any other royal reporter.

I may be misremembering but didn?t the Sussexes say that they wouldn?t speak through intermediaries any more only their own official representatives or themselves? I wonder if that was directed at people like him.

@HistoryGirl2 -Yes I agree that he is likely not as well connected as he'd like to be and that they're now using their own Archewell spokespersons to give their statements.

My sense about Omid is that he still gets some stories about the Sussexes? reactions/feelings to certain things/events from friends of the couple in London, (and yes there are some left though they shy away from media sources.) However I do sense there has been a certain distancing since the Sussexes became ensconced in California. Perhaps naturally, though there was a sharp rebuttal from them with regard to one of his comments in an article several months ago. That doesn?t mean he knows nothing about the couple?s feelings, though. There are still those previous connections in London.

Harry and Meghan eviction 'has sparked row between working and non-working royals' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11810017/Harry-Meghan-eviction-sparked-row-working-non-working-royals.html)

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 01, 2023, 07:36:51 PM
I can?t say why, as I said before, I don?t know what Charles? end game is. The original debate was to whether he was able to do this and I said he is fully capable of doing this legally if he wished to pursue that option.

well yes technically he can do it.  He can persuade Andrew to give up the lease, but that will mean shelling out quite a bit of money.  If Andrew is not willing [ it will likely cost even more. But does he want to?  If Andrew can afford the house, even perhaps at the cost of shutting some of it up, or perhaps having one of his daughters sharing it, which would give him more company, why do it?  Andy has to live somwhere, and he has a right to live in that house for 75 years.  Charles is at odds wth Harry (IMO not through any fault of his own) so he may not want to have a fight with his brother as well.

Ok.

Omid is Megs bestie. He was married or engaged or at least longterm bf to her other bestie, Marcus of SoHo.
When Omid speaks, he is her n dumbos mouthpiece.


KingCharles has made a big, important move in favor of The Monarchy and the people of his subjects and that is all that matters.
Andrew, Harry do not matter and are not important and these are two things they never understood and no one told them and made them .

Andrew, like Anne and Edward, should have had his own place from the beginning. Oh, he did in Sunninghill which he n Sarah both left after divorce and let a massive beautiful home fall into ruin. Neither gave a care ( profanity word starting with an s would be better here for emphasis).
Andrew could have sold that home long ago and immediately after the divorce ?.before the airport  fly path, etc. He did sell it eventually?dubiously, shady deal which are Andrew?s middle names. Lol.
Andrew way back when could have bought a place for Sarah and the girls to grow up in too.

Andrew n Srarh got a shady, undeserving, etc. deal from QE. Royal Lodge for 75 years, lol, so he will still be alive at age 150 ok. Sarah?s part was if Andrew dies first, she stays at RL for life. I guess her life expectancy must be 15 too. Lol.
Really, this was ridiculous. A 75 year lease.


Eug n Bea should have been told, encouraged to get their own homes for  after marriage. Eug n her family were in FC rumor says.
I always doubted that. What woman would want to move into another woman?s house , even renting, as in the other woman?s taste which renter could not change, remodel, repair, reform rooms, etc. Was aEug that desperate to just live on royal property? Maybe so.

Where does Bea n her family live?

FC. Dumbo n his wife are never living back in England and will rarely visit. Why, after his book, their reality tv show,like why and for what? After implying how racist BRF is and saying how terrible the country is, racist people.
After his book, go back and smile at KC n others for coronation?.like huh. Why, what.
Talk about homeless , high rents etc in England when a place like FC will be , is abandoned costing millions to gut to the bones and rebuild?.jus like Sunnighill was.

Monarchy is hereditary, rank. Andrew n Henry missed the lesson.
Could RoyalLodge go to William? Perhaps, but I would say, no now. He has KP for when in London. AnmerH still both costing millions fo gut and rebuild. Now Adelaide C as a hom base. Williams , the heir , moves are based by him on not rank, bu the needs of three growing , young children?s needs of school, friends and Cath?s family of parents and sister close by.

if , when HM are in England, secure, luxurious, historic accommodations can be atBuckinghsmPalace . A museum, working place, lol.  Well, it was fit for a Q. How about that, lol.

Quote from: sara8150 on March 02, 2023, 03:24:42 AM
Harry and Meghan eviction 'has sparked row between working and non-working royals' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11810017/Harry-Meghan-eviction-sparked-row-working-non-working-royals.html)

Perhaps let Andrew stay for, on the ridiculous 75 year lease ant RL  and Sarah too.
Hey renegotiate it to 200 years, lol.  Andrew needs to pay for RL. Anne n Ed n Zara n Peter pay for their roofs.
No royal properties for Eug n Bea. That is the catch for Andrew n Sarah. These women should find n buy their own homes.

what are you talking about?  Eugenie and Bea have their own homes.  Not at all sure what you are meaning.
andrew has a lease on RL which means he can live there for a long time.  To break the lease would mean Charles negotiating with him and paying him compensation for the improvements he has made and paying him to break the lease early.  Otherwise Charles would have to go ot law which again is going to cost a lot and look bad.  Since ANdrew seems to want to stay there, if he can pay his bills, its noones business but his where he lives.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 02, 2023, 09:09:59 AM
what are you talking about?  Eugenie and Bea have their own homes.  Not at all sure what you are meaning.
andrew has a lease on RL which means he can live there for a long time.  To break the lease would mean Charles negotiating with him and paying him compensation for the improvements he has made and paying him to break the lease early.  Otherwise Charles would have to go ot law which again is going to cost a lot and look bad.  Since ANdrew seems to want to stay there, if he can pay his bills, its noones business but his where he lives.

yes, I understand about RL being leased to Andrew forever and if he should pass away, Sarah can live there forever.
I get about KC having t buy out Andrew. That would not be worth it. William does not need RL.
Andrew, perhaps has to pay for somethings so let him and maybe the cost and time can force him out.

Sarah does not have her own home. She lives now and forever at RL.

I stand corrected then about Eug n Bea. Last I read, Eug was living at FrogCattage before she moved to Portugusl but that is not her own home. It was Sussex house.
Last I  read, Bea lived at StJamesPalace. That is not her own home.
Royal property is one?s own home if you are a lesser rank fam member and a no working BRF.
Zara n Peter have their own homes. SV and things do not pay for it.
KC needs to trim the BRF , by appearances, and things.

Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 02, 2023, 12:13:55 PM
yes, I understand about RL being leased to Andrew forever and if he should pass away, Sarah can live there forever.
I get about KC having t buy out Andrew. That would not be worth it. William does not need RL.
Andrew, perhaps has to pay for somethings so let him and maybe the cost and time can force him out.

Sarah does not have her own home. She lives now and forever at RL.

I stand corrected then about Eug n Bea. Last I read, Eug was living at FrogCattage before she moved to Portugusl but that is not her own home. It was Sussex house.
Last I  read, Bea lived at StJamesPalace. That is not her own home.
Royal property is one?s own home if you are a lesser rank fam member and a no working BRF.
Zara n Peter have their own homes. SV and things do not pay for it.
KC needs to trim the BRF , by appearances, and things.

I understand that the Mapelli-Mozzi family now live in the Cotswalds though they likely still have a London residence as Wolfie does live there with his mother and the couple still are seen in the city.

Princess Beatrice and Edoardo leave central London for ?3.5million Cotswolds farmhouse | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/1711920/princess-beatrice-house-cotswolds-edoardo-mapelli-mozzi-pictures)

The York sisters did live at St. James Palace for many years and were charged rent that someone was paying. The Brooksbanks were at Ivy Cottage prior to moving to Frogmore Cottage for a brief period of time and again they had to pay rent. That would have left Beatrice at SJP until she and Edo married in the summer of 2020.
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent also pay rent for their accommodations at Kensington Palace.

Current Kensington Palace residents also include the following working royals. The Gloucesters left KP's Apartment 1 for the much smaller carriage house in 2020 or 2021. The Kents have long lived at Wren House also located at KP.

Princess Alexandra has long lived at Thatched House Lodge in Richmond Park for decades.

Currently none of the BRF are living at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. I understand that Anne/Timothy and Edward/Sophie do have apartments available at SJP now for when they need to spend the night.

Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 02, 2023, 12:13:55 PM
yes, I understand about RL being leased to Andrew forever and if he should pass away, Sarah can live there forever.
I get about KC having t buy out Andrew. That would not be worth it. William does not need RL.
Andrew, perhaps has to pay for somethings so let him and maybe the cost and time can force him out.

Sarah does not have her own home. She lives now and forever at RL.

I stand corrected then about Eug n Bea. Last I read, Eug was living at FrogCattage before she moved to Portugusl but that is not her own home. It was Sussex house.
Last I  read, Bea lived at StJamesPalace. That is not her own home.
Royal property is one?s own home if you are a lesser rank fam member and a no working BRF.
Zara n Peter have their own homes. SV and things do not pay for it.
KC needs to trim the BRF , by appearances, and things.

Andrew does not have the house forever.  He has a lease for 75 years ad so after his death, his heirs can live there until the lease runs out.  NOone can live there forever,  it is on a lease and the lease has a limit.
Why do you want Andrew to be forced out of his home?  He bought the lease, and paid for improvements to the place.  As long as he can pay his bills, and does not break any of the terms of the lease, he should be able to live there till he dies. 

What this does show us is just because a story is in the Sun or Daily Mail, doesn't mean it's not true.

British tabloids have historically broken some of Britain's biggest stories.

^ Good point. They tend to sensationalize for readership so it?s important to have some skepticism, but yeah, they were reporting a rift between the Wales and Sussexes long before it was officially reported by the big papers.

^^^The rumor is Andrew will accept relinquishing RL with the Crown Estate paying him back around GBP 8million in reconstruction repairs and the sort.

All leasing today do have such a clause. Not around 2000, but he is willing.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 03, 2023, 01:15:46 AM
What this does show us is just because a story is in the Sun or Daily Mail, doesn't mean it's not true.

British tabloids have historically broken some of Britain's biggest stories.

They have broken a few big royal stories, only because certain royal principals involved wanted those particular stories out there and so gave permission for one particular outlet to publish them.

However the vast majority of stories printed about the royals in the British tabloid Press are gossip pieces picked up from lackeys,  and prove to be rubbish for about 95% of the time.

Look at Richard Palmer?s response to the Sun story. He?s the Express RR, but it?s clear that he knew nothing about the FC thing, and in fact said yesterday on the Express podcast that the story ran directly contrary to what he and other colleagues had been told (by the Royal Press Office presumably) about Charles wanting peace with Harry and to keep contact with his family, desperately wanted him to go to the Coronation etc.

So here we have two tabloid outlets being fed two different tales by sources. And as well, the Fail lining up with the Sun and claiming they had been told that the ?eviction? is the end of any relationship with Charles for the Sussexes or visits  to the UK to see him, which is plainly ridiculous, but par for the course for the Fail which always pretends it has known about any true stories its fellow tabloids publish that prove later to have legs.

All the RRs are basically gossip writers who provide a use for the royals for PR and the occasional story they want to get out into the public domain for whatever reason. 

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 03, 2023, 01:32:09 AM
^ Good point. They tend to sensationalize for readership so it?s important to have some skepticism, but yeah, they were reporting a rift between the Wales and Sussexes long before it was officially reported by the big papers.

What ?big papers?? Broadsheets, who rarely report royal gossip? The Big papers in Britain are the big sellers like the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Daily Express etc. The tabloids, who report royal gossip pretty well daily.

Quote from: wannable on March 03, 2023, 01:40:09 AM
^^^The rumor is Andrew will accept relinquishing RL with the Crown Estate paying him back around GBP 8million in reconstruction repairs and the sort.

All leasing today do have such a clause. Not around 2000, but he is willing.

Who?s reporting this rumour? Twitter I presume, or Neil Sean (who didn?t know anything about the FC thing either or he would have said so, quicker than a rat up a drainpipe!) Certainly before the Sun was fed it by a senior source, which Sean never gets.

And what does ?Not around 2000? mean in your post? The sentence doesn?t make sense.

This report was from as early as the 19th of Feb last year, one of several outlets that were reporting that if he was forced out of Royal Lodge Andrew would receive a big payout of around 7 million, something that was self evident as I mentioned it in my first post on this latest scandal. So Sean, Twitter and co are playing catch up on speculation that is around one year and three weeks old!

Prince Andrew set for ?7 million pay out if forced out of Royal Lodge | Metro News (https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/19/prince-andrew-set-for-7-million-pay-out-if-forced-out-of-royal-lodge-16134171/)

Thnx @TLLK. Good for Bea to have her own home for family and one shehas no restriction with. Remodel inside and out as she pleases. Having your own private home is a freedom Bea has. Good for her.

Eug, well, they are in Portugual  a bit .
Seems she would want her own, independent home too.

No @Amabel2 , I get Andrew has a lease. He must be paid for it if thriwn. Common sense would be just let him and Sarah stay and pay what little they pay. Yes it is a forever sweetheart deal. Andrews lease will outlive him and Sarah.

Im not sure what your point is. 

Quote from: Curryong on March 03, 2023, 01:56:48 AM
Who?s reporting this rumour? Twitter I presume, or Neil Sean (who didn?t know anything about the FC thing either or he would have said so, quicker than a rat up a drainpipe!) Certainly before the Sun was fed it by a senior source, which Sean never gets.

And what does ?Not around 2000? mean in your post? The sentence doesn?t make sense.

The buzz rumor  in flleetstreet says it's the Sussex camp in both instances; the FC story and the Andrew story. Both stories were known by everyone involved (Harry, Meghan, Andrew + Sarah and Crown Estate heads one called Robin and another one David) since 11th Jan, it was withheld to wait if  the couple cracked, they did 72 hours ago. The Professional Victimhood narrative.

^ It depends on each person's POV set forth from the knowledge that the couple do not have a domicile legally (they were served by the Crown Estate signed sealed and delivered by a Robin and David) since 11th of January 2023.

Put oneself in the couple's shoes, knowing no abode (it is sitting empty, new pictures, no furnishing), they 'can' stay in any royal palace 'only' by invitation by the King, which will include security and all things paid for during their 'invitation by the King stay.  IF they want to come 'on their own', no royal palace. That is why I said a couple of days ago this is bigger. The couple know this, the Home Office know this (tied to the security)...

Therefore, fleetstreet says the leak came from the Sussex camp. This only affects the couple, nobody else. They are trapped and don't know how to be humble accepting it rather than creating more fake narratives via Omid Scobie that 'we are stunned with the news, nobody told us, the King is cruel'', etc. If a Jason type would take them to a court of law, they'd get caught again with just the official notice of intention of no more extension of lease dated 11th Jan, with a received on the same date.

For what it's worth, there is according to the same fleetstreet rumours about half a dozen 'other stories', 3 of them too damaging that will be published after the coronation.

Quote from: Curryong on March 03, 2023, 01:51:02 AM
What ?big papers?? Broadsheets, who rarely report royal gossip? The Big papers in Britain are the big sellers like the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Daily Express etc. The tabloids, who report royal gossip pretty well daily.

I was referencing papers like the Times and the Telegraph that usually only report on something once it?s verified by one of their own sources. They?re interested in the royal game too, but not at the expense of their own reputation. Everyone expects the DM to have dubious sources.

I presume these rumours you post about come from Twitter or Sean, though as usual Wannabie, you provide no sources for any of it.
And it doesn?t ?just affect the Sussexes?. The media, especially the British tabloids, have been making hay over the story of Andrew being ?forced? out of Royal Lodge by his brother so that presumably William and Kate can have it and Andrew can be plonked in FC.There have been just as many stories about Andrew?s (and Fergie?s) resistance to this plan all over the media as there have over the Sussex ?eviction?.

And buzz rumours that it all comes from the Sussexes! Pleeeze! I might as well say I read something on Twitter about W+K wanting RL and give no sources and spread it on here.

Where did you get these rumours from? I constantly seem to be asking you this when you come up with this, but you never reply. We are supposed to provide valid sources when we post stories on here.

The only ones who have been evicted from a crown estate property since 11th of January is Harry and Meghan. 

Andrew will never be evicted (he'd have to do an Oprah trashing his family - brother the King, etc rather than trashing himself to be 'evicted') from a crown estate property, transferred, like any of the other Dukes and Duchesses (as in books, history) whom have been 'transferred within' a crown estate property.

I didn?t say in my post that Andrew will be evicted. There are other pressures, moneywise that Charles can exert on Andrew besides eviction. Pressure and persuasion with an iron glove, for this ?transfer?.

And I ask you again to provide valid sources for your allegations that the Sussex camp is involved in these rumours, considering that there have been stories from early last year at least that Andrew will be forced to leave Royal Lodge due to financial pressures. I posted a link here early today from a Feb 2022 press report.

Where are your sources for your allegations? Valid ones please, from mainstream press not Twitter.

There is no 'personal' moneywise pressure and persuasion from Charles to Andrew.

There is a small weakness in the RL 90 acres related to security, which isn't included in the 'fixed' installment, Charles is paying, it is very costly. Where is the weakness? Maybe Harry will disclose it in the new chapters of his book with a I want to missle my Pa? Or better yet, the unfixed will be fixed by a new tenant.  I'm talking about a weakness of the land, a weak spot of entry...security learns via caught intruders, just saying.

I think Charles is going to be a whole heck of a lot less lenient with Andrew than the Queen was. He does not seem to have the time to deal with his ridiculousness, and I applaud him for it. Andrew relies heavily on Charles unless he suddenly wants to find himself a job and a home he can buy outright on his own. With his current image, I wouldn?t bet on that option. It behooves him to go along with what Charles has in mind.

He also seems to wanna tighten the money belt and get the finances in good order.

Quote from: wannable on March 03, 2023, 01:30:27 PM
There is no 'personal' moneywise pressure and persuasion from Charles to Andrew.

There is a small weakness in the RL 90 acres related to security, which isn't included in the 'fixed' installment, Charles is paying, it is very costly. Where is the weakness? Maybe Harry will disclose it in the new chapters of his book with a I want to missle my Pa? Or better yet, the unfixed will be fixed by a new tenant.  I'm talking about a weakness of the land, a weak spot of entry...security learns via caught intruders, just saying.

That new tenant may well be the Wales?s, but we shall see. And pressure can be applied to family members by cutting the annual allowance given them from the King. It?s been reported that Andrew?s annual allowance will be cut from what he now receives, 240, 000 pounds, leaving him unable to staff or maintain Royal Lodge in the future. I?d say that is a considerable pressure.

It?s crazy because this story has kind of taken on a life of its own. This happened in January. We didn?t find out about it until the end of February. I think they asked BP for comment; they said no comment. And then they asked the Sussexes for comment and they said it was true.

I?m not sure that either side ?leaked? it. Maybe reporters heard rumblings and asked for comment and received one from Harry and Meghan.

Hmm we shall see. 

The 'safest' (huge fixed security for decades in place, etc) housing is within ''home park'' at Windsor (Windsor Castle, Frogmore House, Frogmore Cottage, Adelaide Cottage) rather than the existing houses at 'great park' at Windsor (i.e. Royal Lodge including it's 90 acres).  I've said too much. So just add one plus one of cost effectiveness knowing Charles. Andrew's security is private now, that land weakness is being paid by Charles.

Andrew IMO will do something wise, transfer.

Add on: Don't get me wrong, great park has security but it's not as iron clad as home park. Charles has also said via the media he will not leave his brother homeless. That is why I said Andrew will not be evicted but transferred. The ball is in Andrew's hands now, he can do what HistoryGirl2 said or accept FC.

Harry and Meghan should not complicate 'themselves'.  How great is it that when 'invited by the King' everything will be arranged for them!

IF they want to visit on their own, purchase a home, pay a private security.

But, we're talking about the couple that loves to create and stay in a soap opera.

It could be a non issue, a half page note in history books of a modern Tower of London moment, so lets see, it's a developing story.

I think the decision to not renew the Sussexes' lease on Frogmore Cottage was a combination of a practical business decision and a consequence of the couple's actions over the past several years.  FC is a lovely, newly renovated house and there's no reason for it to just sit empty the majority of the time if it could be put to use.  But if there's a bit of retaliation in the decision, I really don't blame Charles.  Harry and Meghan have treated the family atrociously and they can face some consequences for it, although I don't think it's really a big deal to them.  They are settled in Montecito and have a beautiful home there.

But if they wanted the King to let them keep their grace and favour home, perhaps they should have made a little effort to stay in the King's grace and favour.

You know, of course Harry had some trauma in growing up, with his parents' unhappy marriage and the tragedy of losing his mother and I do have sympathy for the child he was.  But I still think that at some point in his youth (and Andrew too since he also seems to have suffered from 'second son syndrome'), someone needed to give them a kick in the pants--figuratively. 

Someone should have said, "Yes, you're the second in line.  You're not going to inherit the crown.  But you still have so many incredible opportunities and privileges.  You will never have to worry about having a roof over your head and food on the table.  You have access to the best healthcare in the world.  You can receive a top notch education.  You can do meaningful work to make the world a better place (and probably not have to work nearly as hard as most people do).  Now, cut out the whining and jealousy or you will lose some privileges until you have learned to appreciate them."

I really think that would have done them both a world of good.     

^ Completely agree with you, @Kristeh-H. I was actually a little surprised to see Charles make such a bold move, but like you said, I think it?s a combination of good business sense and just being fed up and wanting to move on from the unpleasantness of it all.

But yes, as a side note: Frogmore looks beautiful from the outside and I?m sure H & M decorated beautifully inside. It would be absolutely no hardship on Andrew to ask him to move there. I?ll spare a thought for the poor souls who have no home at all, not the likes of Andrew who is being offered a gorgeous home to retire to after embarrassing his whole family.

Yes, exactly!

I bet they had a wonderful and great library at FC.  By the picture moving all the 'hardcover' books and bookworm sleuths zooming in on the list. For sure.

The IKEA furniture can be donated though  :wink:

Here's aerial photo of Frogmore Cottage. From viewing the few available photos, I'd never realized how large it actually is until I saw this one.

https://twitter.com/christinacann17/status/1074486156966969349

QuoteBetter aerial view of Frogmore Cottage! Will be a fabulous home once renovations are complete!

 

Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 03, 2023, 03:40:51 PM
You know, of course Harry had some trauma in growing up, with his parents' unhappy marriage and the tragedy of losing his mother and I do have sympathy for the child he was.  But I still think that at some point in his youth (and Andrew too since he also seems to have suffered from 'second son syndrome'), someone needed to give them a kick in the pants--figuratively. 

Someone should have said, "Yes, you're the second in line.  You're not going to inherit the crown.  But you still have so many incredible opportunities and privileges.  You will never have to worry about having a roof over your head and food on the table.  You have access to the best healthcare in the world.  You can receive a top notch education.  You can do meaningful work to make the world a better place (and probably not have to work nearly as hard as most people do).  Now, cut out the whining and jealousy or you will lose some privileges until you have learned to appreciate them."

I really think that would have done them both a world of good.     

:goodpost:

Quote from: TLLK on March 03, 2023, 05:36:57 PM
Here's aerial photo of Frogmore Cottage. From viewing the few available photos, I'd never realized how large it actually is until I saw this one.

https://twitter.com/christinacann17/status/1074486156966969349

Exactly! This isn?t some tiny little hole in the wall we?re talking about here.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are OK about the King's decision to evict them from Frogmore Cottage, The Times can reveal. They were not ''stunned'' at the request for them to leave their UK home and believe that 'if we need to move out, we will get ourselves out'.

The couple's reaction is in sharp contrast to reports that have claimed they were shocked at being given notice to quit their home near Windsor Castle.
It might also affect the chances of whether they decide to accept an invitation to the coronation. Until now the assumption has been that they were so upset about being told to move out that they would be unlikely to attend the ceremony at Westminster Abbey on May 6.
If they are less put out by their eviction than has been portrayed so far, it remains a possibility that one or both of them might attend.
A source close to the couple said: 'The world seems to be more distraught over it than they have been.'

Valentine Low
The Times

Archive pfp
Harry and Meghan are ?OK? about leaving Frogmore Cottage (https://archive.is/V0GtN#selection-867.0-895.103)

Quote from: TLLK on March 03, 2023, 05:38:12 PM

:goodpost:

Thanks, TLLK.   :)

Absolutely nobody anywhere knows what is going on or what is happening until BP says so or Charles himself says so........everything is an assumption as we are playing at guessing house to house or games to games with people's lives.   Relationships are fragile in life be they family or friends and one thing important is that *BLOOD does not make a family just because someone is born into that family*,regardless of Harry being born into the royal family or not, he has shown he wants OUT as HE moved out of the family and very far away from the family. He will go through life being the son of a king and the brother of the next king and that is all. Nothing else and no perks, no money, hopefully no more titles for anyone,  Sometimes a family member can do so much damage and cause so much pain and hurt to the family that it is impossible to repair because all *TRUST* has been broken and love destroyed like Harry and Meghan have done for the last 3 years......just wonder how they would feel if one of their family members did that to them as what they have done to the royal family?  My guess is they would not be quiet or and hell would break loose like it has already by them to the royal family who have shown nothing but being quiet and having dignity so that there is no tit for tat war on the royal family's part.

so why do people get so excited over every story in the tabloids?

 :wacko:   That is a very good and interesting question, and I wish I knew the answer.  I like facts, just something I learned working as a certified paralegal in a divorce law firm. Maybe some like to tell stories, make up things to talk about, or stand firm for someone for  unknown reason only they know of.  Maybe it is just a way of having a silly conversation about people we will never met and can voice our likes and dislikes without them knowing.  It is the waiting game I think that draws attention to some and their events that can and does drive some people over the edge of reason.   We really have no idea what is happening until it happens do we?  Tabloids love money as most of us do yet businesses can and do influence people to say things that are untrue all because of their own beliefs or egos as I call it, clickbait seems like big business to make money.  The thing is that is how the world started out, maybe cavemen and cavewomen got together and voted for a leader and life and  times grew out of that, so monarchies have been around for thousands and thousands of years, seems like they are slowly being forced out by new ideas and time, yet their traditions, well some of them anyway are still around, holidays for one is a big way of keeping the past alive.    Gossip .....what can one say about Gossip and royals.....  :sarcastic:

that wasn't what I meant.  I mean why are royal followers so uncritical of everything they hear or read in the tabs or social media?  No matter how silly or unlikely the story, they get excited and discuss it for days...

More speculation that regarding possible accommodations for the Sussexes when they visit the UK. It's being guessed that the family could make use of the DoY's former BP apartment.

Also more thoughts on "who might end up where" at Windsor but this like all other speculation articles should be taken lightly.

King Charles will offer Prince Harry and Meghan a Buckingham Palace apartment when they visit UK | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820687/King-Charles-offer-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Buckingham-Palace-apartment-visit-UK.html)

QuoteKing Charles is set to offer Harry and Meghan an olive branch by allowing them to stay at Buckingham Palace when they visit Britain in the future, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are due to give up the keys to their previous British home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, later this year. But they may be offered Prince Andrew's old suite in the Palace ? where he once entertained the model Caprice and disgraced socialite Ghisaline Maxwell ? whenever they need it.

It is the latest move in the complex merry-go-round of royal properties set in motion by the King's plans to streamline the monarchy and remove perks from non-working Royals.

It is understood Charles has offered Frogmore to Prince Andrew, who is reluctantly set to leave the 30-room Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor where he has lived for more than 20 years.

Discussions are under way as to whether Prince William and his family might move into Royal Lodge ? which is understood to require extensive renovations ? once Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York leave.
After being asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage by the autumn, King Charles is said to be considering offering the couple access to Buckingham Palace whenever they visit the UK

Current assumptions are:

Andrew-Frogmore Cottage.

The Wales-Royal Lodge Windsor after extensive work to address damp and new roof.

The Brooksbanks-Adelaide Cottage.

The Sussexes-Andrew's old apartments at BP when needed.

For now everyone else remains in their current homes.

Wessexes-Bagshot Park

Anne/Timothy-Gatcombe with her children living on property with their famiies in separate homes.

Gloucesters/Kents to remain at KP

Alexandra-Thatched Roof Lodge

Tbh, I don't think it matters.

I feel as if the articles about 'offering' a place is because of the blow back of the choice. It was just a bad PR move.

But even then, I don't expect them to take an offer to stay anywhere with the family. It's been said, the family doesn't trust them and they haven't trusted the family even before the interviews. I mean, even before Frogmore, they had another home they were planning for in Cotswolds, until that was leaked and photos were taken of their bedroom.

It's more of it is what it is and the media is playing it up because this is the next big thing they have to old on for the news cycle. H&M aren't really giving anything and also some of the palace favs, trying to spin the move because even they can see how bad this sorta looks but in the end, the family/charles gets what they want. H&M get their money back and there's nothing much to do about it.

Here is another thought in the game of royal dwellings: It is possible that the Wales Family may want to stay put at Adelaide Cottage FOR NOW. They have already had two residences completely renovated for t hem. Taking on a third may not go over well, especially during harsh economic times.  Also, staying at Adelaide fits their attempts at providing their children as normal an upbringing as possible. It is not palace-like and offers a lot of outdoor space, while allowing them use of Windsor Castle facilities - for hosting official events, use of the stables, etc. I think Royal Lodge would be perfect for them, but I don't think it will happen for a while, if ever. Meanwhile a Sussex residence is a big issue. It is certainly "up in the air" at the moment, and whatever happens will be full of drama and is not easily predicted.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 04, 2023, 09:32:10 PM
Tbh, I don't think it matters.

I feel as if the articles about 'offering' a place is because of the blow back of the choice. It was just a bad PR move.

But even then, I don't expect them to take an offer to stay anywhere with the family. It's been said, the family doesn't trust them and they haven't trusted the family even before the interviews. I mean, even before Frogmore, they had another home they were planning for in Cotswolds, until that was leaked and photos were taken of their bedroom.

It's more of it is what it is and the media is playing it up because this is the next big thing they have to old on for the news cycle. H&M aren't really giving anything and also some of the palace favs, trying to spin the move because even they can see how bad this sorta looks but in the end, the family/charles gets what they want. H&M get their money back and there's nothing much to do about it.

I respectfully disagree that any offer of an apartment for the Sussexes to use  is because of "blow back." It's been the norm during the last reign, for members of the BRF to have apartments available to them  at BP for late night or early morning London engagements if they live outside of London. Therefore Anne, Andrew and Edward had their apartments given to them by their mother.   I believe that there would have been an offer one to the Sussexes  had they remained in the UK as senior working royals due to the fact that they like Andrew were living at Windsor. Now from what I have read, the housing situation at Windsor and in London (KP/BP/CH) has been part of an ongoing discussion for quite some time now, even prior to the late Queen's death. It would have been expected that as time passed, that some members of the family would need to downsize as their children grew and left home while younger couples with growing families would move into larger homes.

^Agreed @TLLK. It was always going to be what happened. They were asked to leave in January. I think Charles had time to think this through. It makes the most sense. No need for you to have a home from the Crown estates, but the guest rooms will be available if you visit. The RF is moving on; business as usual.

I?m not really seeing any blow back either. Even info from the Sussex side has come out and said they?re not bothered by it. They?ve gone their separate ways; it was a pretty natural decision from Charles.

Our Channel 9 news is reporting now that the Sussexes have received email correspondence about attendance at Charles?s Coronation. Other news outlets are reporting it too in the past couple of hours. The couple haven?t yet announced as to whether they?ll attend.

King Charles coronation: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle coronation invite status revealed (https://www.9news.com.au/world/king-charles-coronation-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-coronation-invite/5badc6f6-18ba-4ee6-b1da-2a3639d04797)

Quote from: Curryong on March 05, 2023, 01:43:33 PM
Our Channel 9 news is reporting now that the Sussexes have received email correspondence about attendance at Charles?s Coronation. Other news outlets are reporting it too in the past couple of hours. The couple haven?t yet announced as to whether they?ll attend.

King Charles coronation: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle coronation invite status revealed (https://www.9news.com.au/world/king-charles-coronation-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-coronation-invite/5badc6f6-18ba-4ee6-b1da-2a3639d04797)

I would tend to believe that they've received the "save the date" email that likely went out months ago and now they'll be receiving the pertinent information that an adult  non-working member of the British Royal Family would require for the actual coronation day and the weekend events. I'm guessing it will have details on the expected general timeline,  the dress code, the "staging area" for the transportation, and possibly even accommodations for that weekend. There will be a number of family coming who are not based in London.

I am curious about the dress code as it might be clearly defined between the working and non-working royals. The working group are we going to see uniforms for the men? Are we going to see morning suits or white tie? Will the working ladies be in gowns and tiaras/orders? Will we see the non-working ladies in something similar to the Dutch Investiture with full length dresses and hats?

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 05, 2023, 03:44:26 AM
^Agreed @TLLK. It was always going to be what happened. They were asked to leave in January. I think Charles had time to think this through. It makes the most sense. No need for you to have a home from the Crown estates, but the guest rooms will be available if you visit. The RF is moving on; business as usual.

I?m not really seeing any blow back either. Even info from the Sussex side has come out and said they?re not bothered by it. They?ve gone their separate ways; it was a pretty natural decision from Charles.

Exactly @HistoryGirl2 . Also I tend to believe that given the Sussexes have often cited security and have even declined to attend the DoE's memorial service over their concerns, that Charles knows that offering his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren accommodations at  BP should help them feel safer while in the UK. Now I do realize that BP has had some well publicized break ins over the decades, but overall the family should feel secure. There's a large garden for the children to enjoy as well as the palace swimming pool. At this point in time, no one lives at BP full time though Anne/Timothy and Edward/Sophie do maintain apartments there.

^^^Roya Nikkhah getting a call from Montecito is so Omid smashing the crockery.

Quote from: TLLK on March 05, 2023, 02:04:59 PM
I would tend to believe that they've received the "save the date" email that likely went out months ago and now they'll be receiving the pertinent information that an adult  non-working member of the British Royal Family would require for the actual coronation day and the weekend events. I'm guessing it will have details on the expected general timeline,  the dress code, the "staging area" for the transportation, and possibly even accommodations for that weekend. There will be a number of family coming who are not based in London.

I would also wonder what the timeline to RSVP would be. I?m a little surprised they haven?t declined the invitation. I would imagine the security lawsuit will not be resolved before then.

Who knows, regarding the dress code TLLK. I have to say that long dresses and hats are fairly uncommon at such formal events for the British royals. I know the Queen wore such a combination for, I believe Anne?s wedding or it might have even been Prss Margaret?s, in a vivid turquoise colour. But in general the BRF ladies tend to go the elaborate hat and coat and dress route if they aren?t going to be in the full get-up of tiaras and long gowns. I can imagine the men may well be in uniform though.

RSVP: I recall first week of April in order for organizers to arrange or rearrange name cards visible or in thier digital map.

It is the same date (first week of April) Westminster Abbey will be closed to the public until 09 May 2023.

Trivia: HMQEII coronation Westminster Abbey was closed for 6 months.

Quote from: wannable on March 05, 2023, 02:12:04 PM
^^^Roya Nikkhah getting a call from Montecito is so Omid smashing the crockery.

I still find this ^ more juicy goss than the invite.

Quote from: Curryong on March 05, 2023, 02:22:47 PM
Who knows, regarding the dress code TLLK. I have to say that long dresses and hats are fairly uncommon at such formal events for the British royals. I know the Queen wore such a combination for, I believe Anne?s wedding or it might have even been Prss Margaret?s, in a vivid turquoise colour. But in general the BRF ladies tend to go the elaborate hat and coat and dress route if they aren?t going to be in the full get-up of tiaras and long gowns. I can imagine the men may well be in uniform though.

Hmmm...might be time to start a poll.

And I did start a poll.  :yesss: It's good to be the Administrator.  :windsor1:

Quote from: wannable on March 05, 2023, 02:24:41 PM
RSVP: I recall first week of April in order for organizers to arrange or rearrange name cards visible or in thier digital map.

It is the same date (first week of April) Westminster Abbey will be closed to the public until 09 May 2023.

Trivia: HMQEII coronation Westminster Abbey was closed for 6 months.

Thanks for the info, @wannable!

You are welcome

Quote from: Curryong on March 05, 2023, 02:22:47 PM
Who knows, regarding the dress code TLLK. I have to say that long dresses and hats are fairly uncommon at such formal events for the British royals. I know the Queen wore such a combination for, I believe Anne?s wedding or it might have even been Prss Margaret?s, in a vivid turquoise colour. But in general the BRF ladies tend to go the elaborate hat and coat and dress route if they aren?t going to be in the full get-up of tiaras and long gowns. I can imagine the men may well be in uniform though.

Whoa... just had flashbacks to those 1970's and 1980's millinery years for QEII,  QEQM and PssM.  Please Lord I hope we will be spared those horrors.

Quote from: TLLK on March 06, 2023, 12:07:33 AM
Whoa... just had flashbacks to those 1970's and 1980's millinery years for QEII,  QEQM and PssM.  Please Lord I hope we will be spared those horrors.

Well yes! The turquoise outfit was a bit of a nightmare I seen to recall. It sort of billowed as the Queen moved. But the 1970s/80s were pretty ugly decades fashion wise anyway, imo. I?m hoping for tiaras, gowns and a bit of bling but have an awful feeling it?s likely to be a sea of colourful coats and hats for the majority instead, with the exception of the Queen of course.

Later: I looked it up and the turquoise outfit was from Margaret?s wedding in 1960, worn with one of her more close-fitting hats I seem to remember. But that?s the only time as far as I recollect that the Queen wore a long gown with a hat (not shown) at such an event.

RCIN 100041 - Evening gown (https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes//fashioning-a-reign-90-years-of-style-from-the-queens-wardrobe/palace-of-holyroo-3)

A better photo. Queen Elizabeth at Princess Margaret's wedding in 1960 | Queen elizabeth, Norman hartnell, Princess margaret (https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/40039884171284469/)

And more family members wearing long gowns and hats at the same wedding. It truly is the only time I saw this.

The Queen Mother, Prince Charles and The Queen attending Princess Margaret's wedding. | Princess margaret wedding, Princess elizabeth, Young (https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/511651207659978152/)

Quote from: Curryong on March 06, 2023, 01:09:45 AM
Well yes! The turquoise outfit was a bit of a nightmare I seen to recall. It sort of billowed as the Queen moved. But the 1970s/80s were pretty ugly decades fashion wise anyway, imo. I?m hoping for tiaras, gowns and a bit of bling but have an awful feeling it?s likely to be a sea of colourful coats and hats for the majority instead, with the exception of the Queen of course.

Later: I looked it up and the turquoise outfit was from Margaret?s wedding in 1960, worn with one of her more close-fitting hats I seem to remember. But that?s the only time as far as I recollect that the Queen wore a long gown with a hat (not shown) at such an event.

RCIN 100041 - Evening gown (https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes//fashioning-a-reign-90-years-of-style-from-the-queens-wardrobe/palace-of-holyroo-3)

A better photo. Queen Elizabeth at Princess Margaret's wedding in 1960 | Queen elizabeth, Norman hartnell, Princess margaret (https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/40039884171284469/)

Thanks for the picture of HM in that gorgeous blue gown, even with the styles being not of today's fashion, HM looked stunning and so beautiful.  Picture of a perfect lady at that time.

Quote from: Curryong on March 06, 2023, 01:28:34 AM
And more family members wearing long gowns and hats at the same wedding. It truly is the only time I saw this.

The Queen Mother, Prince Charles and The Queen attending Princess Margaret's wedding. | Princess margaret wedding, Princess elizabeth, Young (https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/511651207659978152/)

Thank you @Curryong for the photos.  This must have been one of QEII'S big events after her maternity leave ended. She had just given birth to Andrew in February that year.

I believe that Edward and Sophie's wedding was late afternoon and the female guests were in long dresses with fascinatirs.
It is possible that we could see a dress code of long dresses and hats for the royal ladies who are not part of the working group ie Meghan, Beatrice,  Eugenie,  Louise, Zara, Sarah...

Quote from: TLLK on March 06, 2023, 04:49:15 AM
Thank you @Curryong for the photos.  This must have been one of QEII'S big events after her maternity leave ended. She had just given birth to Andrew in February that year.

I believe that Edward and Sophie's wedding was late afternoon and the female guests were in long dresses with fascinatirs.
It is possible that we could see a dress code of long dresses and hats for the royal ladies who are not part of the working group ie Meghan, Beatrice,  Eugenie,  Louise, Zara, Sarah...

Really? I saw Edward and Sophie?s wedding on TV and couldn?t remember at all that their guests were also on long dresses and hats. I always thought every wedding of the Queen?s children had seen the old dress, coat and hat thing. My memory is going, going,lol! As for this event, which is much grander than a royal wedding, we shall have to see. It will be a shame to see few to no tiaras.

As far as I can recall, at Sophie's wedding hte ladies wore hair things like fascinators and long dresses.

Quote from: Curryong on March 06, 2023, 06:18:11 AM
Really? I saw Edward and Sophie?s wedding on TV and couldn?t remember at all that their guests were also on long dresses and hats. I always thought every wedding of the Queen?s children had seen the old dress, coat and hat thing. My memory is going, going,lol! As for this event, which is much grander than a royal wedding, we shall have to see. It will be a shame to see few to no tiaras.

@Curryong-They had a late afternoon/early evening wedding so the dresscode was unusual for a BRF wedding. The request was for "no hats" and the majority of the guests complied. QEII wore a fascinator of ostrich feathers dyed to match her lavender gown with a floor length hem. Sophie's mother's dress was lower  calf length as was Princess Anne's.  QEQM ignored the requests and came dressed with a hat and day dress. Pss Margaret was in a wheel chair but appears to have followed her elder sister's lead.

One of the few links with full length photos showing QEII's dress that day.

Royal Wedding Throwback: Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex | Tatler (https://www.tatler.com/gallery/prince-edward-sophie-countess-of-wessex-wedding-day-gallery-1999)

This event had the least amount of coverage of any of QEII's children's first weddings. None of the major networks covered it in the U.S. as I recall it was only Fox News in the U.S.

So now that I've pulled us completely off topic,   :hijack!: I need to steer us back to the Sussex family chat.

Thankyou for giving my memory a bit of a jog, TLLK. I?ve been having a think and somewhere in the dregs of my memory I do recollect reading that the QM disobeyed directions and came in a dress! This was only after you mentioned it though! I suppose she thought as she was in her 90s she could dress however she wished! Wasn?t it Sophie who asked for no hats?

However, apart from Sophie and Edward?s appearance (Sophie looked nice but that put-together tiara plus Edward?s kind designer necklace for his bride, ugh)  I have absolutely no recollection of this wedding, though I remember all the others. I certainly watched it on TV but it must have been quite forgettable. Of course it happened at a time when the British public were a bit off the royals because of Diana?s death and all that had gone before.

Yes the dresses were not exacly great, the queen was rather laughed at for dressing like a 1920s flapper, and the wedding itself did not get much coverage.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM
Yes the dresses were not exacly great, the queen was rather laughed at for dressing like a 1920s flapper, and the wedding itself did not get much coverage.

Now I have the "Charleston" playing over and over in my head.  :laugh:

Actor Tyler Perry's plane landed in Santa Barbara and then  he went to visit the Sussex family for a couple of hours. He later returned to his home in Atlanta,GA.

Tyler Perry visits Harry and Meghan at ?12m California mansion after Coronation RSVP | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742753/Tyler-Perry-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-visit-Montecito-mansion-dxus)

QuotePerry was spotted boarding his jet in Los Angeles to make the 20-minute journey to Santa Barbara, less than an 8-minute drive from Harry and Meghan's California pile.

The film director was seen driving to the couple's home in a suit and tie, a bodyguard escorting him to meet the couple.

Perry's visit is believed to have lasted around two hours after which he once again boarded his plane to head to his home in Georgia.

I cringe when I read stuff like this. A private plane from LA to Santa Barbara for a couple hours visit? I guess flying first class just doesn?t cut it anymore. I can maybe understand why someone like the President or the King *might* need to do this due to security concerns, but seriously? You?re Tyler Perry. Is taking a commercial flight really that much of a hassle? It?s entirely their prerogative to do so, but I find it appalling in terms of helping our planet.

Quote from: TLLK on March 06, 2023, 02:30:29 PM
Actor Tyler Perry's plane landed in Santa Barbara and then  he went to visit the Sussex family for a couple of hours. He later returned to his home in Atlanta,GA.

Tyler Perry visits Harry and Meghan at ?12m California mansion after Coronation RSVP | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742753/Tyler-Perry-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-visit-Montecito-mansion-dxus)

Happy to see that Tyler got in a visit with his God-daughter and everyone.

They said he changed into a suit and if true, I hope we get to see some pictures of Lili with her godfather.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 06, 2023, 05:09:55 PM
I cringe when I read stuff like this. A private plane from LA to Santa Barbara for a couple hours visit? I guess flying first class just doesn?t cut it anymore. I can maybe understand why someone like the President or the King *might* need to do this due to security concerns, but seriously? You?re Tyler Perry. Is taking a commercial flight really that much of a hassle? It?s entirely their prerogative to do so, but I find it appalling in terms of helping our planet.

Perry was on his way to his home in Georgia though, which would have made it two separate flights, one Santa Barbara from LA, then one from Santa Barbara to Atlanta etc.  Celebs often fly by private plane, and I agree, doesn?t help the planet, but not many of them do commercial flights simply because they get hassled by members of the public wanting autographs, wanting to talk about their latest picture, latest concert, record etc. Both Ed Sheeran and Harry Styles have been touring Aus, both are quite down to earth, neither flew commercial.

Very few celebs/ entertainers these days fly commercial first class. That is for poor people, lol.
Only the celeb/ entertainer ones who do not fly private jet are the ones who cannot afford and do not have the hook up all of the time.

Flying commercial first class and buying a a section, nope.
They would never see hounding public in first class .

Bill Mahr  had a good segment on his show about this . It was about3 weeks ago. He gladly admitted, he only flies private  . Yes he bought a Tesla, solar panels on home, but he will not compromise nor can he for logistics on using a private plane.

Tyler, Oprah, Sussex duo, Kardashians all fly private jet. Kardashians , Oprah, Tyler and others own their planes.
Environment?.who cares.
Protecting the environment and doing kinds of crazy things is only for  the little people preached to by the multimillionaires worths hundreds of millions  and billionaires.


The environment and saving the planet was big in the news when I was a child ?..in the 1970s. 1970s. That?s right. 1970s.

Anyway, Sussex scored big with Tyler and Oprah helping push RACIST BRF.

BTW, this weekend, Chris Rock had a live show on Netflix.His them was selective  memory.
He went in on Megan and the RACIST BRF AND RACIST COUNTRY OF THE UK. After show, some other comics talked about theRACIST BRF.

Meg n Henr did a super, fantastic, wonderful,lifelong, worldwide job on calling THE BRF RACIST AND THE TUK TOO.

Air transport of the British royal family and government - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government)

The BRF have flown on private planes for a very very long time, so don?t let?s pretend that only celebs do it.

The first two Kings Flight aircraft were bought by the RF in 1928, yes that?s right, 1928, and the then Prince of Wales, the future Duke of Windsor utilised them fully for both private trips and engagements until he abdicated as King.

The senior royals today have all also used the royal helicopter, and not just for transportation between engagements either. Andy and his daughter Beatrice used the helicopter to get to golf courses etc.

Charles has constantly used private planes in the past (including sending an empty plane back to Highgrove to collect forgotten painting materials on one occasion) as has Camilla, and yes, the Wessexes, and William and Kate and Harry, sometimes on trips to Europe, like the Wessexes when going to Switzerland to ski.

So they?re all guilty of it.

It truly would be silly for Sussex to attend KC.
Hypocrites.
The BRF is RACIST as Sussex claimed , but did not actually say in so many words, but did adhere, led others TO SAY SO.
Netflix, Megsy said and demo started hi silly curtsying is and was QEII  and how it reminded her of the Tudor dinner theatre thingy over here that people go to all,Tudor dressed up and stuff.

pleased to meet you ma?am. Isn?t that Megs so brilliant, cute, and perfect, perfect, perfect.

For Sussex to go there ehhh,curtsytoKC, do do silly.
Why go.

Just to put out there, I would not expect Oprah ,  Tyler and other billionaires to fly fist class commercial. It is silly.

Kardashians never talk about save the planet.

KC and working senior members  on vacay or official  business to fly commercial would be silly and to fly on official , govt business would be dangerous for the other passengers. You would asking for a terriosts to take  down  the  civilian, commercial plane.

As for darling, brilliant, sweet , woke, perfect, perfect perfectMegsy and her comical sidekick, Henny, it would be stupid to No borrow aTyler, Elton, Oprah?s, someone?s private plane.

The only person who calls Meghan and Harry all those names and descriptions is yourself, on this forum. I?ve never heard any Sussex fans call Meghan perfect, darling etc in such an extravagant fashion online or others insult Harry in such a way either. Why stoop to do that here?

Quote from: Curryong on March 06, 2023, 10:32:10 PM
Perry was on his way to his home in Georgia though, which would have made it two separate flights, one Santa Barbara from LA, then one from Santa Barbara to Atlanta etc.  Celebs often fly by private plane, and I agree, doesn?t help the planet, but not many of them do commercial flights simply because they get hassled by members of the public wanting autographs, wanting to talk about their latest picture, latest concert, record etc. Both Ed Sheeran and Harry Styles have been touring Aus, both are quite down to earth, neither flew commercial.

100% this is a problem with many, many wealthy people. Again, they can do whatever they want to, but I personally find it to be pretty alarming that the discomfort of maybe a few minutes is being put above the well-being of the planet. This is one of a number of issues where the comforts of the wealthy are put before the health of the Earth, and it?s done all the time.

Meghan and Harry never called the family racist. They said someone had concerns about skin color and I've seen that spun in way whoever said it had been worried about what might happen to Archie, how people would be racist towards him.

I think it was an ignorant comment but not-uncommon in non royal families. It comes up more often than people would like to admit. It's also a very old, aristo thing. That being said, it was the British media that ran with calling them racist, putting the words in Harry and Meghan's mouth as they always do, see privacy. That being said, it's debatable and up to how someone takes it.

Honestly, I don't think that would've been said, if the people who said it actually took reactions to heart and learned When the news came out, at first it was sort of denied and then the stories started to spin. Then stories came out about how no, it happened because of staff miscommunication, it was a joke, it wasn't that serious, then Robert Jobson in his book, said that he knew who said it but Harry shouldn't have taken it so seriously. So, it was admitted that comment was said but it wasn't suppose to be taken seriously and it was unfair.

If you believe him and it wouldn't take Harry and Meghan to point to instances of racism within the Royal Family, often put off as gafs, the very foundation and etc.

Still, Harry and Meghan have no spoken about the nasty, dehumanizing, mocking and derogatory ways that Harry and Meghan, especially Meghan have been spoken about in on forums, social media, tv media, print and etc. Even before them stepping away, when Meghan was doing the 'proper' thing and being silent. Before The Oprah interview and etc. She's never referred to a member of the royal family in the mocking and down putting way in, like saying 'Megsy and Henny'.

I will disagree, that fans of Harry and Meghan refer to them with those descriptions in a non-mocking way, especially on social media. But it happens for other members of the Royal Family or any celebrity or famous person. Often put on pedestals and fawned over as if they're perfect. It's the nature of social media, forums or any place people come together.

It's not everybody but it happens and most of the time, those voices are the loudest.

As for the flying, yes it's bad for the environment and they could do better any many ways (any famous person) but I'm not going to be begrudge them because there lives are more important. There are some famous people that don't get a strong reaction and are able to travel pretty easily. There are those who are at risk of attack because of people who want to hurt them or have super over-zealous fans.

I pour more of my attention to the people who are really killing the environment: oil companies, people in government who cut cost to pocket more money, building pipe-lines on indigenous land and destroying communities and the like. The train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio has done more damage to the earth more than Tyler Perry imo.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 07, 2023, 12:47:33 AM
Meghan and Harry never called the family racist. They said someone had concerns about skin color and I've seen that spun in way whoever said it had been worried about what might happen to Archie, how people would be racist towards him.

I think it was an ignorant comment but not-uncommon in non royal families. It comes up more often than people would like to admit. It's also a very old, aristo thing. That being said, it was the British media that ran with calling them racist, putting the words in Harry and Meghan's mouth as they always do, see privacy. That being said, it's debatable and up to how someone takes it.

Honestly, I don't think that would've been said, if the people who said it actually took reactions to heart and learned When the news came out, at first it was sort of denied and then the stories started to spin. Then stories came out about how no, it happened because of staff miscommunication, it was a joke, it wasn't that serious, then Robert Jobson in his book, said that he knew who said it but Harry shouldn't have taken it so seriously. So, it was admitted that comment was said but it wasn't suppose to be taken seriously and it was unfair.

If you believe him and it wouldn't take Harry and Meghan to point to instances of racism within the Royal Family, often put off as gafs, the very foundation and etc.

Still, Harry and Meghan have no spoken about the nasty, dehumanizing, mocking and derogatory ways that Harry and Meghan, especially Meghan have been spoken about in on forums, social media, tv media, print and etc. Even before them stepping away, when Meghan was doing the 'proper' thing and being silent. Before The Oprah interview and etc. She's never referred to a member of the royal family in the mocking and down putting way in, like saying 'Megsy and Henny'.

I will disagree, that fans of Harry and Meghan refer to them with those descriptions in a non-mocking way, especially on social media. But it happens for other members of the Royal Family or any celebrity or famous person. Often put on pedestals and fawned over as if they're perfect. It's the nature of social media, forums or any place people come together.

It's not everybody but it happens and most of the time, those voices are the loudest.

As for the flying, yes it's bad for the environment and they could do better any many ways (any famous person) but I'm not going to be begrudge them because there lives are more important. There are some famous people that don't get a strong reaction and are able to travel pretty easily. There are those who are at risk of attack because of people who want to hurt them or have super over-zealous fans.

I pour more of my attention to the people who are really killing the environment: oil companies, people in government who cut cost to pocket more money, building pipe-lines on indigenous land and destroying communities and the like. The train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio has done more damage to the earth more than Tyler Perry imo.

I have to respectfully disagree that "ignorant comments" or  inquiring about skin color or any physical traits of an unborn child is "a very old astro thing." In my nearly sixty years on this planet, I've heard quite a number of people from a very wide variety of socio-economic, racial/ethnic, and education levels make inquiries and predictions regarding which family member an unborn child will resemble.

Now as to the Sussexes' comments during the interview with Oprah Winfrey and afterwards, neither have shared exactly what was said nor have they stated which person made it. From what I can tell, they don't plan to do so any time soon if ever.
However while the Sussexes never used the term "racist," I do believe that based upon the conversation, the tone of voice and the facial expressions made, that the Sussexes wished to give the impression that someone in the family was making a negative remark towards their unborn child and that it had to do with his/her racial ancestry. If they had wanted to clear up this impression, they certainly had the time to do so before January 2023.

Prince Harry says psychedelics are fundamental part of his life

Page Six


Prince Harry: Psychedelics are 'fundamental' part of life (https://pagesix.com/2023/03/04/prince-harry-psychedelics-are-fundamental-part-of-life/)

Are his children safe ?

Prince Harry Says He Had So Much to Learn About Systemic Racism (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-effects-systemic-racism-learning-people-interview/)


Little Boy Faulteroy says here , his words, about how  his eyes are open and he sees the past of systemic racism he had and within the institution ofBRF.   No. I am not directly quoting him. He and Megsy hinted, alluded, pushed with slightly but really suggesting, instigating THE UK AND BRF ARE RACIST.

:lol:
The Duke of Sussex, 38, spoke about his personal growth in this week's exclusive PEOPLE cover story as his memoir Spare hits bookshelves. Harry reflected on how his eyes were opened to racism in the media, royal institution and world at large after his relationship with his wife, who is biracial, began six years ago.

"My relationship with Meghan has opened my eyes to so much I fear I otherwise would have never fully understood. When we recognize bias within ourselves or others ? we have a choice. Be part of the problem through inaction or part of the solution through change," Prince Harry tells PEOPLE.

"We live in a world with systemic racism, and none of us are immune from the effects of that. I am someone who has long benefited from my place in society," he says. "I understand that much better today than I once did. I had so much to learn and, equally, unlearn. It's not a simple process, but it's a fulfilling one. I'm a better husband, father and human because of it. I feel more grounded and connected."

Quote from: wannable on March 07, 2023, 01:30:48 AM
Prince Harry says psychedelics are fundamental part of his life

Page Six


Prince Harry: Psychedelics are 'fundamental' part of life (https://pagesix.com/2023/03/04/prince-harry-psychedelics-are-fundamental-part-of-life/)

Are his children safe ?

Yes they are safe, lol.  What a dummy?.him. Dumb thing of him to say  and to do. Is he stupid or crazy  or both?
I think both.

?Harry & Meghan? Has One Perfect Moment That Will Forever Change How You Feel About Prince William | Decider (https://decider.com/2022/12/15/harry-and-meghan-realest-moment-shade-at-william/)

Direct quotes directly from their own lips from their reality tv show, their truth is the truth and only the truth because everyone else lies . Ok

The story that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle present is one of true love foiled by scheming, lying, unscrupulous, and racist parties. Some of the villains come from within their own families, while the majority of boogeymen hide behind a long lens camera.

Quote from: TLLK on March 07, 2023, 01:11:04 AM


Now as to the Sussexes' comments during the interview with Oprah Winfrey and afterwards, neither have shared exactly what was said nor have they stated which person made it. From what I can tell, they don't plan to do so any time soon if ever.
However while the Sussexes never used the term "racist," I do believe that based upon the conversation, the tone of voice and the facial expressions made, that the Sussexes wished to give the impression that someone in the family was making a negative remark towards their unborn child and that it had to do with his/her racial ancestry. If they had wanted to clear up this impression, they certainly had the time to do so before January 2023.

Totally agree with TLLK here.  While Harry and Meghan may not have spoken the word 'racist', they certainly implied it and when the press was calling the family racist, Harry and Meghan kept their mouths shut for almost 2 years.  I wish Tom Bradby had pressed him more on that. 

After all that Harry and Meghan have said and done there is just no words left to describe this couple left in any decent language.  Is Harry dangerous, that you better believe with all the crap out of his mouth about drugs and believe me I know first hand all about those drugs having spent a lifetime working with young adults who got hooked on them......what Harry is doing is promoting the use of these dangerous drugs as a way of fixing your life.....drugs KILL period!  Not only is Harry putting himself in danger of dying from an OD but his wife and children are in danger of these drugs also even by the drugs being in their home as I would think since Harry says they are a fundamental part of his life.   He is an adult and dad and brother can not do a darn thing to help him and all a person can do is let him hit bottom and hope to heaven he is alive when he does.  This is NO DAMN GAME, this is LIFE, one time around and you mess with it in this way, your DEAD and there is NO coming back either. 

Please don't ever support any drug use ever.....I lost to many people to drugs and I know for sure what they can do to a person.

Quote from: Curryong on March 06, 2023, 10:32:10 PM
Perry was on his way to his home in Georgia though, which would have made it two separate flights, one Santa Barbara from LA, then one from Santa Barbara to Atlanta etc.  Celebs often fly by private plane, and I agree, doesn?t help the planet, but not many of them do commercial flights simply because they get hassled by members of the public wanting autographs, wanting to talk about their latest picture, latest concert, record etc. Both Ed Sheeran and Harry Styles have been touring Aus, both are quite down to earth, neither flew commercial.

Honestly I believe it's more to do with not having to deal with the hassles of flying in the 21st century.


You certainly have more control over your schedule, avoid baggage fees, enjoy more leg room,   a better selection of snacks and beverages all while not having to fly with strangers who try to take up more space on the armrest.

It's time we return to the topic of the Sussex Family's general chat. The discussion of royal transportation can continue in this new thread to be found in our Modern Monarchies board.

Royal Transportation- Coaches, Planes, Trains, Automobiles, etc.. (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95409.msg1517846#msg1517846)

Quote from: Nightowl on March 07, 2023, 02:24:16 AM
After all that Harry and Meghan have said and done there is just no words left to describe this couple left in any decent language.  Is Harry dangerous, that you better believe with all the crap out of his mouth about drugs and believe me I know first hand all about those drugs having spent a lifetime working with young adults who got hooked on them......what Harry is doing is promoting the use of these dangerous drugs as a way of fixing your life.....drugs KILL period!  Not only is Harry putting himself in danger of dying from an OD but his wife and children are in danger of these drugs also even by the drugs being in their home as I would think since Harry says they are a fundamental part of his life.   He is an adult and dad and brother can not do a darn thing to help him and all a person can do is let him hit bottom and hope to heaven he is alive when he does.  This is NO DAMN GAME, this is LIFE, one time around and you mess with it in this way, your DEAD and there is NO coming back either. 

Please don't ever support any drug use ever.....I lost to many people to drugs and I know for sure what they can do to a person.

Thanks for sharing the human side of drug addiction. 

I was thinking about the  - My question about 'are the children safe' is the universal legal aspect, because he is a Prince, I expect a blind eye, no actions taken, but for the rest of the planet, the fact of publicly stating he is dependant of an illegal drugs, legally his children would be taken into custody by social services to solve who can/may keep the children. The route/rules for social services is very clear and transparent, starts with the spouse, if not eligible, grandparents, uncles and aunts and so on. 

Either way, IF Meghan ever divorces him, she automatically will have the upper hand with Harry's drug intake admission. The people in uniform will do a drug test to both though, it is a requirement in social services to custody in any circumstances be it a demand of divorce friendly or otherwise - both loose cannons - speak too much or public knowledge of mad parent or parents.

Quote from: Nightowl on March 07, 2023, 02:24:16 AM
After all that Harry and Meghan have said and done there is just no words left to describe this couple left in any decent language.  Is Harry dangerous, that you better believe with all the crap out of his mouth about drugs and believe me I know first hand all about those drugs having spent a lifetime working with young adults who got hooked on them......what Harry is doing is promoting the use of these dangerous drugs as a way of fixing your life.....drugs KILL period!  Not only is Harry putting himself in danger of dying from an OD but his wife and children are in danger of these drugs also even by the drugs being in their home as I would think since Harry says they are a fundamental part of his life.   He is an adult and dad and brother can not do a darn thing to help him and all a person can do is let him hit bottom and hope to heaven he is alive when he does.  This is NO DAMN GAME, this is LIFE, one time around and you mess with it in this way, your DEAD and there is NO coming back either. 

Please don't ever support any drug use ever.....I lost to many people to drugs and I know for sure what they can do to a person.

@Nightowl - I'm very sorry that you've had this experience of losing people you care about to drugs.

Harry has done everything for an intervention, the more compassionate uniforms would call it a 'cry for help', the practical follow the rules uniforms would make it a move like 'another day in the office'.  This is an ETA clarification of my reference about being a prince and the blind eye.

I'm sure the kids are safe.

Harry isn't out here going lines of coke off the bathroom floor of some ritzy hotel. He's doing supervised  psychedelics or whatever his treatment plan is with his doctors. It's not for everyone, he isn't running into schools and handing of bags of 'candy'. It's something most people wouldn't even be able to afford. There are some people who find help it and doctors who approve with in reason. It's up to people to make personal plans for themselves, as stated by Harry. It isn't for everybody and that's okay, it's works for him.

Just because Harry is speaking how people want, how they see fit and etc, doesn't mean he needs intervention. Sure, it's fine to not like what he's doing or how he's doing it but he's not doing anything that is a cry for help. It's just not liked that the fact that he's happy now and he's not playing the royal game of allowing the media, courtiers and family members to use his pain or his wife's pain for fun or for clicks.

He hasn't shown any actually dangerous or radial behaviors. As I said before, he's never talked about his family in the humanizing or nasty way he's talked about on forums like these, in the media or on social media. Just today or yesterday, Jeremy someone said he should throw his wife down a well. Regular threats of violence and etc shouldn't be acceptable no matter what she said because what Meghan has ever said about the family or her experience doesn't warrant that. (And to be clear, threats, violence against her and the dehumanizing of Meghan came before she ever opened her mouth, so it's not a "it's what she deserves because she's spoken up.")

It is completely okay not like how they're doing what they're doing but it's not to the extreme of he needs intervention or it's a cry for help. Honestly, that type of thinking is what's dangerous.

 While I am certainly not in contact with the Sussexes and their children, I personally don't believe that at this time there is any cause for concern about the Sussex children due to Prince Harry's  recent revelations. (Please note that I am a mandated reporter. )

However be assured that if there was any suspicion of child neglect or concerns over a child's safety, that it just takes a report  from one of their children's teachers, nannies or health care providers who are by law mandated reporters to instigate  a visit from Child Protective Services. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sussexes had a private conversation with their children's teachers about his revelations of drug use in Spare and recent interviews as it is now public news.

Posting this information more as a board message as it might be useful for future reference.

Who are mandated reporters in California?

Training | Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training (https://mandatedreporterca.com/training)

Child Abuse Identification & Reporting Guidelines - Child Abuse Prevention Training and Resources (CA Dept of Education) (https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/ap/childabusereportingguide.asp)

There is a new article about them in the Guardian.

How is brand Harry and Meghan faring in the US? News just in: not good | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/07/how-is-brand-harry-and-meghan-faring-in-the-us-news-just-in-not-good)

? I tell you what?s really boring: the neverending pity-me-please performance the two are foisting upon us. As a staunch anti-royalist I was sympathetic to the couple to begin with ? my enemy?s enemy is my friend and all that ? but the constant oversharing has jumped the shark. Particularly since it becomes more obvious by the day that their grievances are less to do with systemic inequality and more to do with feeling they didn?t get a big enough slice of the born-with-privilege pie. I mean, come on, you can?t go around complaining about how backwards the royals are while insisting that we plebs refer to you as Duke and Duchess. You want some credibility? Give up your stupid titles?

I can?t speak to Harry specifically or even someone who is a parent, but I know someone who does mushrooms and he?s not a drug addict. He?s actually one of the most well-adjusted people I know. I think it?s definitely person-specific.

?Particularly since it becomes more obvious by the day that their grievances are less to do with systemic inequality and more to do with feeling they didn?t get a big enough slice of the born-with-privilege pie.?

This. A thousand times this. As someone who straddles the fence of believing in the monarchy?s benefits and ideologically more in line with the Republican view, I actually was excited when they first announced their decision to leave. And I would love it if they had actual conversations about systemic racism because yeah, it?s very real. But my issue is the fact that it?s all about them. It?s not about the inherent unfairness of monarchy and its roots in promoting slavery and thereby promoting the status quo of inequality. It?s about how *they* were treated unfairly. It?s about how *Meghan* was treated by the papers. Not about how black people are treated by media and institutions in general. It?s not about how princes start off on third base. It?s about how *Harry* can?t handle not being born first.

If they?d just mentioned this stuff once and moved on, I wouldn?t care because most people usually start in with their own experience and then branch out. But they just won?t stop talking about themselves. I?ve mentioned this before, but the Obamas are great at explaining and dealing with issues of systemic race. They never stop at *their* experiences. It?s all about others. The ?me me me, please validate how hard *I* have it? schtick is something that?s personally off-putting.

This doing whatever drugs Harry is on and saying it in public how they are important in his life will cause him big trouble.  Here, he is not an American citizen yet he is married to one, why someone who is close to  him doesn't warn him that just for saying what drugs he did and how important they are to him on national TV that someone can and must might call the cops and or child services and start a process of removing the children from that home.....I have seen that done when I live in NJ, children removed from a home where parents did drugs and more....I am shocked at Harry lack of mouth and brains in doing this.  He could at some point get himself in serious trouble like being shipped back to the UK,,,,,,,My sister used to tell me all the time ....*There is no cure for stupidity* and boy that is Harry and his ego and mouth. Meghan being married to him had better watch her back now if she is doing any drugs.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 07, 2023, 09:15:58 PM

?Particularly since it becomes more obvious by the day that their grievances are less to do with systemic inequality and more to do with feeling they didn?t get a big enough slice of the born-with-privilege pie.?

This. A thousand times this. As someone who straddles the fence of believing in the monarchy?s benefits and ideologically more in line with the Republican view, I actually was excited when they first announced their decision to leave. And I would love it if they had actual conversations about systemic racism because yeah, it?s very real. But my issue is the fact that it?s all about them. It?s not about the inherent unfairness of monarchy and its roots in promoting slavery and thereby promoting the status quo of inequality. It?s about how *they* were treated unfairly. It?s about how *Meghan* was treated by the papers. Not about how black people are treated by media and institutions in general. It?s not about how princes start off on third base. It?s about how *Harry* can?t handle not being born first.

If they?d just mentioned this stuff once and moved on, I wouldn?t care because most people usually start in with their own experience and then branch out. But they just won?t stop talking about themselves. I?ve mentioned this before, but the Obamas are great at explaining and dealing with issues of systemic race. They never stop at *their* experiences. It?s all about others. The ?me me me, please validate how hard *I* have it? schtick is something that?s personally off-putting.

No offence but did you really think that Harry was all that bothered about race or political issues? Or that he and Meg left the UK and the RF out of a noble desire to do good in hte US or Canada?  Certainly SPARE has made it clear that the inequality that bothers Harry is that he was born the SPARE, and was never going to be so privileged as his older brother.  But if he HAD been born the heir, I wonder if he would still have found a grievance, in that the heir has less wriggle room, and unless he walks out of the job completely, which most heirs in the end dont do, he is stuck with a particular role and has far less chance to lead a reasonably ordinary private life.

Quote from: Nightowl on March 08, 2023, 01:16:30 AM
This doing whatever drugs Harry is on and saying it in public how they are important in his life will cause him big trouble.  Here, he is not an American citizen yet he is married to one, why someone who is close to  him doesn't warn him that just for saying what drugs he did and how important they are to him on national TV that someone can and must might call the cops and or child services and start a process of removing the children from that home.....I have seen that done when I live in NJ, children removed from a home where parents did drugs and more....I am shocked at Harry lack of mouth and brains in doing this.  He could at some point get himself in serious trouble like being shipped back to the UK,,,,,My sister used to tell me all the time ....*There is no cure for stupidity* and boy that is Harry and his ego and mouth. Meghan being married to him had better watch her back now if she is doing any drugs.

Hes not going to get shipped back to teh UK because he uses drugs,some of which are now legal in the US. But that does not mean that drug use is a good idea for someone like Harry. He clearly has been a heavy user in hte past and even now, the incoherence of his writing and his aggressive paranoid mindset seems to me to show that hte drug and drink use is not good for him.

First I never said he was being shipped back to the UK, These illegal drugs are not good for anybody, people use them to as an excuse to not deal with their life, just like someone who over eats or goes shopping, addictions take many forms in our lives.   I am saying that someone regardless of who it is could report Harry and Meghan to child services all because Harry opened his mouth about how many drugs he has used and how they are important to him even in his life now.  I have seen families broken all because of drug use and the courts got involved.  Courts/judges have the final say in their cases and not all courts/judges are pleasant people either. What Harry is doing is damn stupid for his words and behavior have consequences like it does for all of us.  I just shake my head in total disbelief on how some just sidestep the use of drugs and what they can do after all the information out there about how deadly they are.  I am not an expert yet I am not stupid either as I make sure I learn daily in my life's journey.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 08, 2023, 09:00:32 AM
No offence but did you really think that Harry was all that bothered about race or political issues? Or that he and Meg left the UK and the RF out of a noble desire to do good in hte US or Canada?  Certainly SPARE has made it clear that the inequality that bothers Harry is that he was born the SPARE, and was never going to be so privileged as his older brother.  But if he HAD been born the heir, I wonder if he would still have found a grievance, in that the heir has less wriggle room, and unless he walks out of the job completely, which most heirs in the end dont do, he is stuck with a particular role and has far less chance to lead a reasonably ordinary private life.

I can only go by the words that people say and then see if their words match their actions. They?ve discussed institutionalized racism (as in used the word) and have been given an award for it. They?ve also used hot button words like misogyny, gaslighting, bigotry, and unconscious bias. Harry?s discussed how his kids are mixed race and that their world is different than his in a lot of ways. So, when a person uses those kinds of words and delves into those topics, I expect them to fully cognizant of the weight behind them and be knowledgeable on the subjects.

There?s definitely been a PR attempt to brand their desire to leave the monarchy because its ?old-school? mentality (read: whiteness) couldn?t handle a biracial American because it?s stodgy and rooted in racism. Now, there?s a conversation to be had there that could be productive and enlightening.

But what I?m saying is that it?s only a surface level conversation because it?s not really about any of that. They?re just words that do not match the actions. This is about their grievances with being second and not being able to cope with not being the most important members of the family. How do I know that? Because it?s the only thing they delve into extensively, both have been plenty happy to accept the trappings of royalty and use their titles for monetary gain, and want that for their children as well.

Quote from: Nightowl on March 08, 2023, 11:21:18 AM
First I never said he was being shipped back to the UK, re about how deadly they are.  I am not an expert yet I am not stupid either as I make sure I learn daily in my life's journey.

thiis is waht you said -- "He could at some point get himself in serious trouble like being shipped back to the UK,,"

That seems to indicate that you think he could be shipped back to the UK,

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 08, 2023, 11:34:06 AM
I can only go by the words that people say and then see if their words match their actions. They?ve discussed institutionalized racism (as in used the word) and have been given an award for it. They?ve also used hot button words like misogyny, gaslighting, bigotry, and unconscious bias. Harry?s discussed how his kids are mixed race and that their world is different than his in a lot of ways. So, when a person uses those kinds of words and delves into those topics, I expect them to fully cognizant of the weight behind them and be knowledgeable on the subjects.

There?s definitely been a PR attempt to brand their desire to leave the monarchy because its ?old-school? mentality (read: whiteness) couldn?t handle a biracial American because it?s stodgy and rooted in racism. Now, there?s a conversation to be had there that could be productive and enlightening.

But what I?m saying is that it?s only a surface level conversation because it?s not really about any of that. They?re just words that do not match the actions. This is about their grievances with being second and not being able to cope with not being the most important members of the family. How do I know that? Because it?s the only thing they delve into extensively, both have been plenty happy to accept the trappings of royalty and use their titles for monetary gain, and want that for their children as well.

Honestly, I think it was obvious  in fact tehy SAID it, that they wanted to leve the UK because they wanted to make money.  They wanted to be half in ad half out of the RF, and I believed then that the HALF OUT would have become bigger and bigger becuase making a lot of money takes time and effort.  They used a lot of stuff about racism and US politics to give the impression that they were humanitarians, becuase they need that image to look good. But it was obvious that Harry had little idea what he was talking about and Meghan probalby didn't have much more.

^Harry sounds completely out of his depth, but I don?t know about Meghan. She seems very intelligent, but I?m not sure that she has an interest in any of this unless it?s directly affecting her. It?s difficult to tell because in this climate, it?s very easy to make money by talking about these issues without having to go in depth.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt in the beginning because I don?t like to think that people are being disingenuous. There was always something in me that doubted her authenticity, but I tried to tamp down on it because I didn?t wanna be judgmental. However, the reports of her treatment of the staff and the comments she made to and about Kate just tells me that my instinct was probably correct. He just seems spoiled and completely out of touch with reality. But I?ve always felt that about him.

I dont think she's all that intelligent, if she had been, she could have tried harder to handle coming into the RF, and learning about royal and British life...That way, she would have had more sympathy from the RF probably, and the public, but when she does things like make a mocking curtsy and say that she didn't know she had to do this or that for the queen, she just looked stupid.

But H is pretty dim, so I suppose she's smarter than he is.
I think that Meg probably THINKS that she is a serious humanitarian because she can talk a lot of stuff about racism, feminism etc in a superficial way.  and of course she and H need the humanitarian image to gloss over the fact that what they really want to do is make more money.  but if she and H had had much brain power they would have realised that they were never going to get permission to be half in and half out of the RF, that if they did want to run a business, as royals, it would need to be done with a lot of being careful and restrictions which they did not want to follow.  THey would have known about Edward and Sophie's attempts to run a business and do a bit of royal work, which had ended badly. THat in short, British working royals are not supposed to go to the US and make mega money selling themselves, even if taht is acceptable for private individuals.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 08, 2023, 12:34:53 PM
I dont think she's all that intelligent, if she had been, she could have tried harder to handle coming into the RF, and learning about royal and British life...That way, she would have had more sympathy from the RF probably, and the public, but when she does things like make a mocking curtsy and say that she didn't know she had to do this or that for the queen, she just looked stupid.

But H is pretty dim, so I suppose she's smarter than he is.
I think that Meg probably THINKS that she is a serious humanitarian because she can talk a lot of stuff about racism, feminism etc in a superficial way.  and of course she and H need the humanitarian image to gloss over the fact that what they really want to do is make more money.  but if she and H had had much brain power they would have realised that they were never going to get permission to be half in and half out of the RF, that if they did want to run a business, as royals, it would need to be done with a lot of being careful and restrictions which they did not want to follow.  THey would have known about Edward and Sophie's attempts to run a business and do a bit of royal work, which had ended badly. THat in short, British working royals are not supposed to go to the US and make mega money selling themselves, even if taht is acceptable for private individuals.

I think some of this is due to entitlement not really stupidity. People who are disingenuous rarely realize how they come off. In their minds, you?re buying what they?re selling. In Hollywood especially, if you can win at the PR game, you?re golden regardless of what your true character is.

Sympathy is the name of the game now. Finding out how to make people feel sorry you simultaneously wins you attention but also protects you from criticism in a way because heaven forbid someone question your victimhood. Only a few people are courageous enough to do this and withstand the Twitter backlash. Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle are examples of people that will call it like they see it and not care what people have to say about their comments.

I personally think she?s a smart person. She?s managed to get to where she is today by being pretty wily. Her intelligence is actually why I doubt the innocent doe lost in the woods act. The bit with the curtesy seemed like exactly that to me: a bit; an act to appear like the clueless American, which is an overused?but crucially?recognizable trope in American movies, TV, and literature. It seems like she?s trying to sell us an image of the fairy tale where the prince unwittingly falls for the hardworking ?normal? girl from the States. Like a bad Hallmark movie. That?s what those clips evoked in me.

Discussion of Lilibet's christening can be found in the Sussexes birthday, anniversaries and milestones thread. Thread is linked below.

Sussex family birthdays, anniversaries and other milestones (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=91170.0)

I think Meghan is very intelligent in some ways, but she can often come across as clueless and tone deaf.  She doesn't always seem to have emotional intelligence (I think that's the term for it), and that's important too, particularly when you're trying to build a brand based on public sympathy.  I think she focuses exclusively on doing what she needs to do to achieve her goals, to the point of ruthlessness, and ignores anything else.  In my opinion, "wily" is an excellent word to describe her.  It's definitely the impression I have.

Harry, on the other hand, just seems like the proverbial bull charging around in a china shop.         

From this American (I don't know how many others are)

It's not shocking that Meghan didn't know. I wouldn't know how to curtesy properly, let alone making sure I do it well enough for a surprise meeting the Queen when I wasn't expecting to see her.

As well as knowing about the family in general, I didn't know the Queen had other kids until Meghan came along. There are Brits who didn't know that Anne was the Queen's daughter. Yes, it's possible to know of royals....but know nothing about them.

Also, Meghan tried extremely hard, even reports came out that she was too friendly. That she tried to work too much (after being implied to be lazy for taking a break during her leave and then when people got wind of Vouge the story switched that Meghan needed to stop working.)  This woman had started working for the people in the UK before the ring was on her finger. And she was willing to endure the abuse, if there was support.

There was none, what she got was "get over it." as in, get over racial abuse and flat-out debasing of her. There was no support, none that mattered to someone who wouldn't have been able to turn on the tv for escape even if she didn't read the papers. I fail to see where Meghan didn't try hard enough.

Hey, even when asking for in-patient care they told her no but was able to pass information about her mental state and wishes to reporters like Low. Some support.

But to bring it back, just because Meghan isn't a smart woman and even if the royals are famous, it didn't doesn't mean people will know. Seeing royal on tv and in fiction, would be nothing compared to actually meeting the Queen. The clip also showed that despite people saying that the Sussex's can't take a joke, even at the risk of being attacked by people, Meghan knows how to make fun of herself.

She didn't mock a curtesy, she mocked herself for being nervous and trying to overboard to impress the Queen.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 08, 2023, 12:59:46 PM
Ie?s managed to get to where she is today by being pretty wily. Her intelligence is actually why I doubt the innocent doe lost in the woods act. The bit with the curtesy seemed like exactly that to me: a bit; an act to appear like the clueless American, which is an overused?but crucially?recognizable trope in American movies, TV, and literature. It seems like she?s trying to sell us an image of the fairy tale where the prince unwittingly falls for the hardworking ?normal? girl from the States. Like a bad Hallmark movie. That?s what those clips evoked in me.

well if she had used her brains to get the hang of life in hte RF, she might have won more sympathy in the UK.  I dont mean superficial things but if she had shown that she understood how the RF work, and what their purpose is, and stuck out royal life for a few years before pulling out, I think the British public mgiht have liked her better.. but one gets the impression that she really did not know what she was doing and did not make any real effort to understand her role in a deeper sense. she seems to have said a lot of goofy things to the RF and created a rift, and she told so many fibs in her TV interviews that I think a lot of the American public have picked up on them, and dont much like her either.  But enough DO i suppose for her to be able to sell her brand.. which seems to be being a Princess in a rrepublic!
the thing about the US is that its such a huge place that there is bound to be a market for all sort of things.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 08, 2023, 11:34:06 AM
I can only go by the words that people say and then see if their words match their actions. They?ve discussed institutionalized racism (as in used the word) and have been given an award for it. They?ve also used hot button words like misogyny, gaslighting, bigotry, and unconscious bias. Harry?s discussed how his kids are mixed race and that their world is different than his in a lot of ways. So, when a person uses those kinds of words and delves into those topics, I expect them to fully cognizant of the weight behind them and be knowledgeable on the subjects.

There?s definitely been a PR attempt to brand their desire to leave the monarchy because its ?old-school? mentality (read: whiteness) couldn?t handle a biracial American because it?s stodgy and rooted in racism. Now, there?s a conversation to be had there that could be productive and enlightening.

But what I?m saying is that it?s only a surface level conversation because it?s not really about any of that. They?re just words that do not match the actions. This is about their grievances with being second and not being able to cope with not being the most important members of the family. How do I know that? Because it?s the only thing they delve into extensively, both have been plenty happy to accept the trappings of royalty and use their titles for monetary gain, and want that for their children as well.

I believe that in part, the perception that their words are not matching their actions, is why their popularity is dropping not only in the UK but in the U.S.A. too especially among those who had been supporters of the couple or at least were sympathetic to their decision to step back from royal duties.  Had the couple chosen to retain but not use their titles at all, while simply being known as "Harry Mountbatten-Windsor or Meghan Markle/Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Harry and Meghan Sussex" that action might have given more weight and substance to what they choose to publicly state in interviews and in written publications. I suggested the latter as this is what the Duchess of Kent did when she stepped back from royal duties. She simply goes by Katherine Kent now.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 08, 2023, 01:44:47 PM
well if she had used her brains to get the hang of life in hte RF, she might have won more sympathy in the UK.  I dont mean superficial things but if she had shown that she understood how the RF work, and what their purpose is, and stuck out royal life for a few years before pulling out, I think the British public mgiht have liked her better.. but one gets the impression that she really did not know what she was doing and did not make any real effort to understand her role in a deeper sense. and she told so many fibs that I think a lot of the American public have picked up on them, and dont much like her either.  But enough DO i suppose for her to be able to sell her brand.. which seems to be being a Princess in a rrepublic!

I agree with you, but I think this ties in with Meghan's seeming lack of emotional intelligence and lack of desire to learn about things she's not interested in, at least that's my opinion.  Diplomacy takes empathy, consideration of others' POV, and an ability to think long term.  I think her real goal was always to be a celebrity, make money, and spend as much time as possible in California, and that's what she focused on.  She was willing to be a part time royal because that was helping her achieve her real goal.  And she didn't take the time to learn what being royal really was like--and that is a big weakness, an Achilles' heel.     

ETA that I guess what I'm saying is that I think Meghan is intelligent in some ways, but not in others.   

^Good distinction. She lacks emotional intelligence and awareness. I think in her Harry has found someone that will validate his emotions. I did happen to read an excerpt from his therapy session that I found interesting. That Meghan saved him from the RF. That he could never be himself as a royal and that how he thinks and acts today would not have been possible as a royal.  I actually agree, but probably not in the same words.

I don?t think he?s someone who is capable of separating the professional from the personal. I personally was never under the impression that any royal is being their ?authentic self? whilst performing royal duties. It?s a job; a very strange job, but a job nonetheless. We can be cordial at our job; polite, pleasant, funny, agreeable, congenial, and hardworking. But that doesn?t mean that we are (or should) be our full selves. The people they meet are not their friends. The public is not their friend. These are charities and organizations of which they are patrons and the public is people they exist to serve. This means that a level of professionalism is required. They owe the public their duty but never their personal feelings and selves. Every person, royal or not, deserves the right to keep their personal selves to the people they care about the most: friends and family. Just because they don?t share their innermost secrets with any Tom, Dick, or Harry doesn?t mean they?re being inauthentic.

His desire to overshare and want to be beloved at every turn is indeed incongruent with royal life. He was right to leave because I don?t think he?s cut out for it. And I do agree that she gave him the courage to do this.

do you honestly think he's all  that hapy in his new life?  He seems to be still rabbiting on about things that most people would have forgotetn about, in his past, as a royal.  He has plenty of money, 2 kids and a wife.  Why not enjoy that rather than writing books?

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 08, 2023, 02:01:42 PM
do you honestly think he's all  that hapy in his new life?  He seems to be still rabbiting on about things that most people would have forgotetn about, in his past, as a royal.  He has plenty of money, 2 kids and a wife.  Why not enjoy that rather than writing books?

Harry has written one book, not a thousand!

Do I think he?s happy? I don?t know that this word is apt. Happiness is fleeting, no matter how good your life is. It ebbs and flows. Do I think he?s content and at peace? No. I think it would be difficult for anyone to leave the life they have always known (and such a peculiar life at that) to a life that is so vastly different. He sounds conflicted. I think he wants to love his life, but I don?t think he?s come to terms with the change.

I think he?s deeply hurt that his family have moved on so easily. I think he?s hurt that William didn?t beg him to stay and that he and Charles didn?t move Heaven and Earth so that they could remain part time royals.

I think the root of his conflict is that, actually. He didn?t really wanna fully leave it all behind. He wanted to dabble in Hollywood celebrity but still have his royal life. And that?s such a great example @TLLK. Katherine Kent was someone who was ready to leave royal life. It was entirely her choice and she quietly asked the Queen her permission to retire. She wasn?t conflicted because she?d likely considered it for a long time. Harry didn?t really. He made the rash decision after his first offer was rejected. That choice still hurts him, in my opinion. I think that?s why he won?t stop talking about it.

Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 08, 2023, 01:38:22 PM
I think Meghan is very intelligent in some ways, but she can often come across as clueless and tone deaf.  She doesn't always seem to have emotional intelligence (I think that's the term for it), and that's important too, particularly when you're trying to build a brand based on public sympathy.  I think she focuses exclusively on doing what she needs to do to achieve her goals, to the point of ruthlessness, and ignores anything else.  In my opinion, "wily" is an excellent word to describe her.  It's definitely the impression I have.

Harry, on the other hand, just seems like the proverbial bull charging around in a china shop.         

I too believe that Meghan is intelligent, however I have come to the conclusion  that she is also easily intimidated by other women who have more experience and knowledge that she does in a particular field ie: understanding and acclimating her role within the British Royal Family and as an official representative of the monarchy and the United Kingdom. After all the courtiers and staff in the 21st century are no longer just retired military personnel or aristocrats aka "the grey men."  Typically they are university educated and  have built  resumes which were built upon time spent working in the public and private sector in human relations, communication, finance etc.. However Meghan who had chosen a career in acting, didn't really have the knowledge and experience that her staff did and IMHO that rattled her as she was trying to adjust to a new life in the UK, marriage, pregnancy etc...For someone who really desires control in their life and how they are presented, this would have been extremely difficult.    IMHO this explains her  behavior especially towards  some of the female members of the  staff who worked for the Sussexes. Based upon what I have read, I get the feeling that Meghan who had very little experience with working in a business role or office setting as the  apart from her short internship in Buenos Aries at the U.S. embassy.  I believe that she found it challenging to acknowledge and accept that her staff knew more about her  new role and how to proceed in it than she did. From what I have read, Meghan's expectations appear to have been a bit unrealistic. It also appears that Meghan made little effort to contact the many people who were suggested to assist her in understanding her new role apart from reaching out to some fashion designers. While I do believe that in time Meghan would have found her footing and have been an excellent representative of the monarchy and the UK, this was ultimately not what she and Harry wanted. I wonder if they could turn back time, would Meghan have considered the original option to continue acting and not become a full time royal. That might have been an easier transition to a new life in the UK.

Now we  know that even British born current and former members of the BRF found this transition to be very challenging and have certainly made errors along the way. Even those who had business and office experience like Sophie, Sarah and Catherine had to initially struggle in their roles as well and ultimately Sarah realized that could not continue in this role.   I can't imagine what it was like for someone without it.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 08, 2023, 01:58:47 PM
^Good distinction. She lacks emotional intelligence and awareness. I think in her Harry has found someone that will validate his emotions. I did happen to read an excerpt from his therapy session that I found interesting. That Meghan saved him from the RF. That he could never be himself as a royal and that how he thinks and acts today would not have been possible as a royal.  I actually agree, but probably not in the same words.

I don?t think he?s someone who is capable of separating the professional from the personal. I personally was never under the impression that any royal is being their ?authentic self? whilst performing royal duties. It?s a job; a very strange job, but a job nonetheless. We can be cordial at our job; polite, pleasant, funny, agreeable, congenial, and hardworking. But that doesn?t mean that we are (or should) be our full selves. The people they meet are not their friends. The public is not their friend. These are charities and organizations of which they are patrons and the public is people they exist to serve. This means that a level of professionalism is required. They owe the public their duty but never their personal feelings and selves. Every person, royal or not, deserves the right to keep their personal selves to the people they care about the most: friends and family. Just because they don?t share their innermost secrets with any Tom, Dick, or Harry doesn?t mean they?re being inauthentic.

His desire to overshare and want to be beloved at every turn is indeed incongruent with royal life. He was right to leave because I don?t think he?s cut out for it. And I do agree that she gave him the courage to do this.

:goodpost:

Great posts, everyone!  I think everyone is making some valid points and bringing up interesting ideas.

No, I don't think Harry is happy but I think that is because he is so troubled within himself.  You can never control what other people think or say or do, so you have to concentrate on how you personally act and react.  Peace and happiness can really only be found within one's own self.  Harry doesn't seem to have that and unfortunately, his therapy doesn't seem to have helped him so far.  I'm not sure if that's because his therapists aren't giving him good advice, or if Harry just doesn't want to hear what they're saying--that he's not willing to work on his attitude and actions that might ultimately help him to be more at peace with life.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 08, 2023, 01:43:24 PM
From this American (I don't know how many others are)

It's not shocking that Meghan didn't know. I wouldn't know how to curtesy properly, let alone making sure I do it well enough for a surprise meeting the Queen when I wasn't expecting to see her.

As well as knowing about the family in general, I didn't know the Queen had other kids until Meghan came along. There are Brits who didn't know that Anne was the Queen's daughter. Yes, it's possible to know of royals....but know nothing about them.

Also, Meghan tried extremely hard, even reports came out that she was too friendly. That she tried to work too much (after being implied to be lazy for taking a break during her leave and then when people got wind of Vouge the story switched that Meghan needed to stop working.)  This woman had started working for the people in the UK before the ring was on her finger. And she was willing to endure the abuse, if there was support.

There was none, what she got was "get over it." as in, get over racial abuse and flat-out debasing of her. There was no support, none that mattered to someone who wouldn't have been able to turn on the tv for escape even if she didn't read the papers. I fail to see where Meghan didn't try hard enough.

Hey, even when asking for in-patient care they told her no but was able to pass information about her mental state and wishes to reporters like Low. Some support.

But to bring it back, just because Meghan isn't a smart woman and even if the royals are famous, it didn't doesn't mean people will know. Seeing royal on tv and in fiction, would be nothing compared to actually meeting the Queen. The clip also showed that despite people saying that the Sussex's can't take a joke, even at the risk of being attacked by people, Meghan knows how to make fun of herself.

She didn't mock a curtesy, she mocked herself for being nervous and trying to overboard to impress the Queen.

One comment and one question. While there?s likely many, many Americans who like you had no clue about anything relating to the RF, none of those people were about to marry a British prince. They would have had no need to know any of it. Before I meet a boyfriend?s family, I wanna know it all. I want to know what?s appropriate or inappropriate to bring up and how I should address them (Mrs. So and so or first names); are they more casual or dressy type of people? And that?s just me, a regular American meeting another regular American?s family. I find it hard to believe that a bright woman of nearly 40 didn?t think to ask the many staff members whose job it is to help, her boyfriend the prince, or even Google about this information before meeting the Queen of England. But hey, maybe I?m overestimating her.

The question: how is it that Harry was able to have a therapist on speed dial but Meghan was supposedly denied access to one?

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 08, 2023, 02:33:30 PM
One comment and one question. While there?s likely many, many Americans who like you had no clue about anything relating to the RF, none of those people were about to marry a British prince. They would have had no need to know any of it. Before I meet a boyfriend?s family, I wanna know it all. I want to know what?s appropriate or inappropriate to bring up and how I should address them (Mrs. So and so or first names); are they more casual or dressy type of people? And that?s just me, a regular American meeting another regular American?s family. I find it hard to believe that a bright woman of nearly 40 didn?t think to ask the many staff members whose job it is to help, her boyfriend the prince, or even Google about this information before meeting the Queen of England. But hey, maybe I?m overestimating her.

The question: how is it that Harry was able to have a therapist on speed dial but Meghan was supposedly denied access to one?

:goodpost:

Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 08, 2023, 02:33:30 PM
You can never control what other people think or say or do, so you have to concentrate on how you personally act and react.  Peace and happiness can really only be found within one's own self.

Truer words have never been spoken or written lol

Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 08, 2023, 02:33:30 PM
Great posts, everyone!  I think everyone is making some valid points and bringing up interesting ideas.

No, I don't think Harry is happy but I think that is because he is so troubled within himself.  You can never control what other people think or say or do, so you have to concentrate on how you personally act and react.  Peace and happiness can really only be found within one's own self.  Harry doesn't seem to have that and unfortunately, his therapy doesn't seem to have helped him so far.  I'm not sure if that's because his therapists aren't giving him good advice, or if Harry just doesn't want to hear what they're saying--that he's not willing to work on his attitude and actions that might ultimately help him to be more at peace with life.

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately I have to agree that based upon Prince Harry's own words and actions via several interviews over the years, the  Harry and Meghan docuseries and his revelations in Finding Freedom (We know they collaborated with the authors) and  Spare, I don't believe that he currently has  personal happiness in all aspects of his life. He's spending far too much time and energy trying blame others for his own actions rather than take responsibility. There appears to have been more than one therapist working with Harry but I have to unfortunately agree again, that either he's unwilling to work on himself to "change the tape" or he just continues search for one that fits the narrative that he has.

I sincerely hope that one day that he will find that inner peace and happiness because for all of his proclamations that he is happy, it's clear to me that he is not. 

^ Boy is it tough to find yourself a good therapist. I can only imagine how difficult it is for a celebrity to find one. That would have to be someone who wouldn?t fall into the trap of becoming a ?yes? man who would agree with anything a client said just so they?d be well liked by their famous client or lose their services if they got angry that the therapist wasn?t affirming them.

But at the end of the day, the work has to be done by the individual. A therapist is good for insight, but you have to understand that nugget of truth that Kristeh-H mentioned. You cannot control anything in life except your actions and reactions. Everything else is outside of your control and the sooner you come to accept that, the easier it is to go through life.

And it?s great to set boundaries and learn to spot behaviors in others that are not acceptable to you, but most importantly, you have to be introspective about your own actions and how you too can be culpable in a situation breaking down or how you can be perceived by others.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 08, 2023, 11:43:01 AM
thiis is waht you said -- "He could at some point get himself in serious trouble like being shipped back to the UK,,"

That seems to indicate that you think he could be shipped back to the UK,

Okay here, *COULD* does not mean he is being shipped anywhere, could is like *Maybe* he could be shipped.  Harry opened his mouth and all this is on HIM period.  Bragging how what...big he is by taking drugs, how tough he is, how intelligent he is....I can guarantee you that people that read and heard him in TV are saying that an  idiot he is.....Good Grief Harry is totally out of control ......all my friends and co-workers in law and drug counseling are sick with what he is doing in promoting this drug use.....this is just evil to the heart of those that are helping drug addicts and the  law enforcement.  What ever happens to Harry is on Harry and from what so many are saying and have read and heard from his own mouth is not good.....Okay let him do all the drugs he wants and watch what happens.....I saw a young man die in front of me by swallowing coke so that he would not be caught by the cops, he was a friend of someone I know  very well.  This drug use started long before Meghan and from the looks of it, she is letting him continue.   

He is not going to be shipped anywhere unless he starts dealing in hard drugs.  AFAIK, Marijuana is now legal in many states in the US and with most drugs, having a small amount for personal use is winked at  and penalties are reserved for people who are dealing.

^Agreed. He is breaking no law, certainly not in the state of California.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 08, 2023, 10:03:54 PM
^Agreed. He is breaking no law, certainly not in the state of California.

As long as he's over 21 years of age, possessing only up to 1 oz or 28.5 g, doesn't sell to anyone under21, drive or ride a bicycle under the influence, if passenger the pot must be in a sealed container, smoking/eating or vaping canabis in public, using it on Federal Govt. land etc...It's more or less the same laws as for alcohol consumption.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 08, 2023, 09:40:58 PM
He is not going to be shipped anywhere unless he starts dealing in hard drugs.  AFAIK, Marijuana is now legal in many states in the US and with most drugs, having a small amount for personal use is winked at  and penalties are reserved for people who are dealing.

Harry has admitted to using hard drugs,more than just POT and that is just what it is, POT and that came from Harry, his mouth, his words.  Putting the issue just on POT does not take away what else he is doing.  Beam me up Scotty for there is no intelligence left on earth......that is something my sister used to say on another site and to me also.

Personally for me, I think this legalization of POT is so damn wrong, what next to be legal..how about coke or LSD...why not legal all the drugs in the world so that everyone can be as high as they want, I am so against DRUGS that maim and kill and the money men who sell it make zillions laughing all the way to the bank while people  die...I am shocked here at the attitude of acceptance of drugs be they POT or anything else, be they legal or not, be they a tiny amount or a shopping bag full....I do know one thing for sure, one drug leads to another.

Harry is a *Druggie* out of his own mouth and boy is he going to suffer the consequences that I firmly believe in.

YOu may be against drugs, but at present, Harry does not seem to be breaking any laws, in using marijuana and alcohol.  One drug does NOT lead to another, it may not be doing him much good but he's not as far as I can see or other people, breaking any laws....

Quote from: Nightowl on March 09, 2023, 07:11:21 AM
Harry has admitted to using hard drugs,more than just POT and that is just what it is, POT and that came from Harry, his mouth, his words.  Putting the issue just on POT does not take away what else he is doing.  Beam me up Scotty for there is no intelligence left on earth......that is something my sister used to say on another site and to me also.

I dont know the law in the US, but even wiht harder drugs, if it is for personal use, and people are not dealing, I think that the penalties are minor. 

^ Certainly for the rich and privileged. Harry?s health is really up to him. His previous alcohol intake worries me more than his drug intake, to be honest. But I?m not sure that I see any sign that he?s out of control with his drug or alcohol intake currently. Maybe he is, but it doesn?t sound like it. I?ve never done any drugs, but I know people that have. Some became drug addicts, but the vast majority didn?t.

It?s definitely sad when people do. But it?s also important to remember that the biggest drug crisis in the US recently came from companies that were selling drugs that were perfectly legal and were being prescribed by doctors.

I dont think it is good for H to do drugs, as he is clealry suffering from the effects of past drug use.  But its up to him. He's not breaking any laws, and he's not likely to be deported or lose his childen etc.  that's just silly. but I think he did a lot of drugs in the past and has not stopped using alcohol and weed at least... and its adding to his paranoia, and his other mental problems.  But it is his call.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 09, 2023, 07:31:17 AM
I dont know the law in the US, but even wiht harder drugs, if it is for personal use, and people are not dealing, I think that the penalties are minor.

I'd have to say that it depends a lot on who you are and how much money you have.  Yes, I'm a bit cynical.   :(

well obviously, but Harry is rich and has good lawyers.  He is not going to get in trouble over using drugs on a personal basis.  Generally, legal systems focus on dealers.

Oh yes, Harry would never get into legal trouble over the drugs.  The only legal problem might be if he and Meghan ever did divorce (and I'm not saying they will) and there custody issues over the children.  Meghan might have a strong hand there.  But I rather doubt that situation would arise. 

Now, the effect of drugs on his mental and physical health are another matter.  I'm not at all convinced that these drugs are helpful, and Harry is not a great poster boy for making that case.

^^^ @Kristeh-H -Yes if the couple were to divorce, the issue of his past and possible current drug use could be an issue.

Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 09, 2023, 02:06:23 PM
Oh yes, Harry would never get into legal trouble over the drugs.  The only legal problem might be if he and Meghan ever did divorce (and I'm not saying they will) and there custody issues over the children.  Meghan might have a strong hand there.  But I rather doubt that situation would arise. 

Now, the effect of drugs on his mental and physical health are another matter.  I'm not at all convinced that these drugs are helpful, and Harry is not a great poster boy for making that case.

The other concern regarding drugs is whether or not being a user at the time children are conceived could affect them.

World Central Kitchen are doing a cookbook, there are a lot of notable people who contributed a recipe including Meghan. The book will be available on Sept. 12th. 

https://twitter.com/WCKitchen/status/1634650371640492034

Meghan entered her Lemon Olive Oil Cake.

She also baked this cake during a during Woman's History Month in 2021 in which Archewell worked with WCK to provide meals and support in Chicago.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 12, 2023, 12:42:23 AM
World Central Kitchen are doing a cookbook, there are a lot of notable people who contributed a recipe including Meghan. The book will be available on Sept. 12th. 

https://twitter.com/WCKitchen/status/1634650371640492034

Meghan entered her Lemon Olive Oil Cake.

She also baked this cake during a during Woman's History Month in 2021 in which Archewell worked with WCK to provide meals and support in Chicago.

That?s an absolutely fantastic way of raising money for a good cause as the Grenfell ladies and Meghan have shown before. And great that Meghan, an enthusiastic foodie, is contributing to WCK in this way. The Sussexes have been solid supporters of this organisation.

Great news!

World Central Kitchen at it again. Such a wonderful organization that never ceases to come up with new ways to help feed people.

Questions about Prince Harry's feelings towards his brother that were outlined in Spare have been moved to this thread linked below.

Books written about and by the Sussexes Part 4. (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95393.0)

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 15, 2023, 03:46:36 PM
Honestly, I?d forgotten all about them and assumed that after Harry?s comments recent comments about the monarchy, it wouldn?t be that big of a deal. I continue to try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they?re not being self-serving and continue to be disappointed each and every time.

Well I see what you mean I have not had a high opinion of Harry for some years now, and it slid downwards from the time he married Meghan but even so, every time they come out in public, they manage to do something that surprises me, and makes me think "I know they are not up to much but i didn't think they were as bad as this.

I think that from what I've seen A LOT of poeple were rather shocked by SPARE.  it really did show Harry up as such a contradictory crazy mess, and Meghan seemed to disappear for the weeks that it was being publicised, as if she was keeping her distance for the time being..
and then they get lLilibet christened and tell us that now she's a Princess.  After 3 years of claiming that he didn't want to be a royal, that he didn't want to be part of that insittution and that he was now living in the US which is a republic.

Maybe even *he* doesn?t really know what he wants. It?s new territory, and it?s likely territory he never saw happening before marrying Meghan. I don?t think he ever saw a situation where his children wouldn?t be titled.

Seeing William be made PoW probably didn?t help matters. His position rises and Harry is looking at him with his nose pressed against the glass. I think this unorthodox way of declaring a change in style likely had to do with that. ?Don?t forget me? type of thing.

I see a lot of contradiction in Harry. He talks about how much he worries about William?s children and how happy he is that he?s not in the royal family any longer. I think he?s trying to play this part of happy ?normal? guy, and he?s having a difficult time adjusting to not being a central part of large royal events.

Pageantry can be addictive. I don?t think he misses doing every day visits to charities, but I think he does miss putting on his uniform or going to big events like Commonwealth Day. Regular wealth and celebrity doesn?t carry the same sort of thrill.

Honestly I dont know what ot make of these things he's saying about Will's chidlren.  Once I would have said, that Harry was not bright and was very fond of kids because he could play with them.  Now Im increasingly cynical and feel "how much did he ever play with Will's kids, or at least how much was it sincerely being fond of his brother's family, and how much was this his PR men's putting forard an image of him being a jolly chap who loves to play with the kiddies.
Surely he realises that he just sounds crazy going on about his brother's children who are none of his concern?

I?m sure he hardly knows Louis, just by circumstance. The other two? Based on how much he disliked William, I?d say not terribly close. It?s doubtful either would be close to each other?s children regardless of what had happened. They don?t really sound like close brothers, even before Spare. The best friends thing sounds like a media creation.

I?m not sure William would want him anywhere near his children now. The story they fed People about inviting them all to the christening was just a way for them to sound magnanimous. I don?t think Harry likes William very much and wouldn?t care whether he was at his children?s christening or not, whether in America, the U.K., or Timbuktu.

Some advice for the couple that might earn them a little more positive public relations if they choose to go to the Coronation.

Prince Harry Reciprocating King's Title 'Olive Branch' Could Prove Good PR (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-king-charles-titles-olive-branch-good-pr-podcast-1787622)

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 15, 2023, 07:35:20 PM
I?m sure he hardly knows Louis, just by circumstance. The other two? Based on how much he disliked William, I?d say not terribly close. It?s doubtful either would be close to each other?s children regardless of what had happened. They don?t really sound like close brothers, even before Spare. The best friends thing sounds like a media creation.

I?m not sure William would want him anywhere near his children now. T

I do wonder about that.  And its sad.  The 2 of them are in a unique position, as the only 2 sons of the future king and having lost their mother tragically at such an early age.  So you would kind of expect and hope that they were close.  But as far as I can see from Harry's book that even as boys, there was more than average tension between them and even when they missed their mother and so on, it did not seem to bring them all that close.
Even when Harry discusses his hope that Diana just had disappeared raher than was dead, it doesn't sound like there was any great closeness there?
So I wonder if perhaps Will always knew that his younger brother was on a knife's edge and perhaps wondered " is he going to stay the course? or is he going to explode one day and bring up all the anger and  confusion?
I do think that Will tried to get him into therapy, and that he was genuinely concerned for his brother and I'd LIKE to believe that under the anger and problems, they both loved each other.. but I'm not sure. Did the rest of the Family and the household feel "Harry's a big problem, he is always angry, always ready to explode what if this gets out to the press? 
Was that why they were willing, it seems in the first year or 2 of the marriage, to allow H to leave Royal life on a temporary or permanent basis?  Perhaps they felt  " ITs Better that Harry should go, and leave Royal duties and we are left 2 people short, than that he has some kind of meltdown which will cause a scandal."
I was surprised at the things that were said about Meghan maybe going on with her acting and the rumours about Harry going to Africa with her and so on.. and I suspect now that that was the R Household trying to find some way of giving Harry an outlet which would satisfy him, and keep him from exploding publicly.  But because H himself wasn't too clear perhaps on what he wanted to do, (other than go to the US which was a money making path that would not look good to the public), the RH and the family delayed (as they are prone to do) nad Harry and Meg DID explode because they wanted out and were not prepared to hang around waiting for the RH to come up with a solution.

I think they love each other, but sometimes siblings just aren?t close. I?m close with mine, but I know plenty of people who don?t really get along with their sibling. They love them, but they don?t really do stuff with them. I think William and Harry each had their own friends, sometimes they overlapped, but overall, as they grew older, they did their own thing.

I also think William was able to accept Diana?s death. That?s not to say that it didn?t devastate him, but it doesn?t *seem* like he allowed that  devastation to overtake him the way Harry did. So, the one thing that should have bonded them more became just another thing where they didn?t really have in common.

I do think Harry exaggerates at how bad their relationship was. I think William probably thought they were normal brothers, some friction and competition between them but loving all the same. I think Harry was angry when he wrote that book and that?s why it sounds so dramatic.

I don?t think the family had ill will towards either of them until they started to squawk about how unfair everything was. That gets old. And then of course, his public comments just completely crossed the line.

It is weird that the children will be a prince and princess but won?t actually be around the RF. Maybe that?s why they?re still considering going to the coronation. To try to retain some closeness with the RF.

THere's nothing wrong with tehm having their rightful titles, even if they lived in the South Pole.  but it IS odd for parents to insist on them having titles from an institution that the parents claim they dislike and that treated them so badly.
But with Harry I just feel that the book SPARE seems to have  been writitn in so much anger that it seems odd that at least some in the RF didn't notice that Harry was an angry young man who resented his place in the hierarchy and his brothers higher rank. I kind of feel that at least sometimes, the PR people in the household must have been very uneasy, and worrying that Harry was going to explode some day.  Or perhaps they thouht he would moan in private but never actually come out iwht it.

Yeah, I gotta say, for someone that wasn?t aware you had to curtsy to the Queen, Meghan latched onto the ?birthright? concept real quick. I think Harry has always liked being a prince. Just not the not so fun stuff that comes with it.

Everything is wrong with them, 3+ years suffering fake rages. Both are so tiresome, no one famous congratulates them publicly with their monetization ways. No one famous will ever ever congratulate the couple with their own prince and princess announcement.

What the couple did was place an onus on themselves and to their children with their own shenanigans. 

^ The Gurkhas.

And seem (Harry's ex friends or whatever little left, his own Spare words) to be living without suffering fake rages on a weekly and monthly basis for years against their both families. I say fake because just recently read from a renowned psychiatrist that people CAN get a rage/angry, but 'doing' it weekly or even monthly. There is a reason behind these two acting up, they are both Mentally Ill.

Quote from: Curryong on March 16, 2023, 01:09:39 PM
Who said he was there for 35 Years? And plenty of Harry?s family and friends lived elite and privileged lifestyles and didn?t go to any war zones at any time.

Yes, but those people didn?t write a book about how awful it is to be such a privileged person. That?s what the conversation is about. His hypocrisy in criticizing the monarchy ad nauseam, talking about how concerning it is for royal children who are not going to be the heirs, and then turning around and blathering on about birthrights for his own children.

Harry own words he lost MOST of his friends.

Don?t know what to make of this article. It appears to have appeared originally in OK magazine, and goes into negotiations about their Coronation attendance. Apparently according to this, the Sussexes want to stay at FC with the Brooksbanks with whom they get on well. They are also anxious about their security and that Archie?s birthday not be ignored.

I hope they do stay at FC with the cousins. A lot of it sounds just gossip.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are negotiating the terms of their coronation attendance and the demands are pretty understandable | Woman & Home (https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-negotiating-terms-of-coronation-attendance-understandable-demands/)

That definitely sounds like gossip. Until I hear it from them, I just won?t believe it. I actually can?t believe that anyone would be so ridiculous as to demand that the RF somehow acknowledge Archie?s fourth birthday on the day a king of England is crowned.

Quote from: Curryong on March 16, 2023, 01:00:07 PM
Like serving twice in the army and air services war zones in Afghanistan in helicopters. That sort of fun?

he watned to be in the army, didnt he?  Said that he'd leave if he didn't get combat duty?  But he left because he didn't want desk duty.

Didn't they have a party for Lili during the the Queen's Jubilee last year? Yes, guests who confirmed, a hired help, the photographer and his family, who filmed it all and the couple sold it to Netflix.

I think it?s perfectly fine to have a party, but to expect the RF to acknowledge it would be ridiculous. They can do whatever they want to on their own time.

All for Netflix and column inches of their drama filled life. So, the couple film themselves daily for season 2, grab the past available news in media, tie it together, another soap opera.  They haven't been paid the whole amount, they need content, which they are getting already. 

''Either way'' negative or positive, they WILL use it for their Netflix show.  The couple always find a twist in making everything a sorry (victimhood) saga. I'm always angry with my family stance, because look what they did, hence I previously said they are already tiresome not only the UK but it has spread around the world.

Quote from: Curryong on March 16, 2023, 02:28:55 PM
Don?t know what to make of this article. It appears to have appeared originally in OK magazine, and goes into negotiations about their Coronation attendance. Apparently according to this, the Sussexes want to stay at FC with the Brooksbanks with whom they get on well. They are also anxious about their security and that Archie?s birthday not be ignored.

I hope they do stay at FC with the cousins. A lot of it sounds just gossip.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are negotiating the terms of their coronation attendance and the demands are pretty understandable | Woman & Home (https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-negotiating-terms-of-coronation-attendance-understandable-demands/)

Archie's birthday- The day will likely be recognized as it has every year since his first birthday. The official social media will post a photo and say "Happy Birthday Archie" or something similar. I don't believe that there will be much else officially  from the BRF in terms of acknowledgement. Maybe they'll have one of the Guards bands film a video of them playing "Happy Birthday."

Lodging-IMO  it could end up being a mix of BP and possibly FC as the coordinators are likely going to want as many participating family members in London the night before the Coronation Day. Afterwards, they could decamp to Windsor Estate.

Security-That will be the same as it was for the Jubilee. The children will be at a secure property when they're not with their parents.

Balcony appearance-I seriously doubt that this will occur for the Sussex family as they've chosen to step back from senior royal duties and have created a very tense relationship not only with the BRF but the British Government and the people of the UK. -This

Quote from: TLLK on March 16, 2023, 03:15:05 PM
Archie's birthday- The day will likely be recognized as it has every year since his first birthday. The official social media will post a photo and say "Happy Birthday Archie" or something similar. I don't believe that there will be much else officially  from the BRF in terms of acknowledgement. Maybe they'll have one of the Guards bands film a video of them playing "Happy Birthday."

Lodging-IMO  it could end up being a mix of BP and possibly FC as the coordinators are likely going to want as many participating family members in London the night before the Coronation Day. Afterwards, they could decamp to Windsor Estate.

Security-That will be the same as it was for the Jubilee. The children will be at a secure property when they're not with their parents.

Balcony appearance-I seriously doubt that this will occur for the Sussex family as they've chosen to step back from senior royal duties and have created a very tense relationship not only with the BRF but the British Government and the people of the UK. -This

Agree with all of this. The focus of the day is on a new monarch for the U.K. and the Commonwealth, and the political and dynastic importance of the event (for those who care, anyway). It?s gonna be rather uncomfortable for the RF, but they?ll have to do their best to ignore the distractions.

And that?s if they actually choose to attend. After all, there has been no word of an apology from either Charles or William.

Thank you @HistoryGirl2. I'm sure that Prince Archie's family will do their best to make his birthday special even though the nation will be focused upon the coronation of his grandfather.

Perhaps the palace bakers might create some special treats for his day?

^That?d be cute! If it were me, I?d do a small thing for him on his actual birthday and then have a party for him the next day and invite the family to stop by and see him once the hoopla is done. That way, no one would feel pressed on coronation day and they?d still feel like they?re celebrating with him.

The Sussexes came to an agreement with Buckingham Palace to not pay rent for Frogmore Cottage after paying back the 2.4 million pounds.

Harry and Meghan struck deal to pay no more rent while living at Frogmore Cottage | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11876637/Buckingham-Palace-struck-deal-Harry-Meghan-let-live-Frogmore-Cottage-rent-free.html)

QuoteThe Duke and Duchess of Sussex struck a deal with Buckingham Palace to pay no further rent on Frogmore Cottage after refunding the ?2.4 million taxpayers paid for its refurbishment, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

It had been reported that the Sussexes would pay a 'commercial rate' for the five-bedroom mansion on the Windsor estate. But Palace officials last night confirmed that the lump-sum payment wiped out the couple's rental obligations as the increased value of the property following the work was taken as 'rent in lieu'.

It's estimated the property would cost between ?150,000 and ?230,000 a year to rent, which means that the Sussexes may have saved up to ?690,000. They will not renew their lease when it ends later this month.

A Palace spokesperson said: 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a contribution of ?2.4 million to the Sovereign Grant which covered the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage. They have fulfilled their financial obligations in relation to the property.

'In line with usual practice for the Sovereign Grant report, the accounting treatment was scrutinised and signed off by the National Audit Office and the Treasury. As with any such agreement between landlord and tenant, further details regarding the Sussexes' tenancy arrangements would be a private matter.'

RE: Frogmore

It seems like....they're trying to find ways, not to pay back what they owe or whatever spin the media has going on now.

The 2.4 mil that was used to make it livable was paid off in rent. Since it was extremely run down (and not being taken care of as a crown property) they had to renovate and do some restoration. Not just put in some fancy new kitchen like the media stated.

So, this is them just trying to find a good angle to justify evicting them. Which is pointless because, they gave enough a reason right? No one was living (but people were) and uncle andy needed it and there was just no other empty home for him to stay in. Harry even noted that Frogmore was the cheapest of all of the run down proprieties.

What it seems like...the 2.4 Mil, was used for something and now they're getting creative with the accounting. Then the 'eviction' brought up some questions of liability. Between this and the creative use of funds, it seems like someone is working overtime to cover their behinds.

A routine book keeping has become a daily mail story. In the original report, it was said that the 2.4 Mil helped to mitigate the covid loss of revenue.

Seems like the family's book keepers have tied themselves into knots, the money didn't go where it needed to go and now a reason is needed not to pay H&M back.

I'm just glad they took the cheapest of the cheapest option. I can't even image the bashing if they had accepted an actual, nice, livable property. Frogmore was used to bash them even when they were working royals. With a more 'grand' place, it would've been horrendous.

Honestly, H&M shouldn't have paid anything but I'm glad they did and now everyone else can twist themselves into knots trying to explain it or pull more of a story out. They paid, nothing more for them to do. Just pay them the money owed and the media/family over there can deal with it.

^If this agreement never took place and it is in fact a lie, the Sussexes will put out a statement saying it?s a lie. So I?m sure we will find out soon enough if it?s not true or not.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 20, 2023, 12:24:58 PM
^If this agreement never took place and it is in fact a lie, the Sussexes will put out a statement saying it?s a lie. So I?m sure we will find out soon enough if it?s not true or not.

I agree. I strongly believe that if the this was untrue that the Sussexes would respond with a statement of their own and possibly even launch legal action against the publication that first  shared the information. We'll just have to wait and see.
If the Sussexes don't respond, then we'll know that the agreement was satisfactory to both parties (landlord and tenant).

It took place, I posted the financial statement report on Frogmore, which matches the numbers. It was a good deal for both parties, the crown estate and the too early quitting pair.

Another article about the Sussex's will they or won't they come which is fine, whatever.

What I find funny is one, once again, sources who complain about the Sussex's talking about also talk about private dealings with the Sussex's. Pot meet kettle.

Two, organizing two schedules.....which is funny to me because has stated by someone else we've been told they won't be ceremony, they won?t be on the balcony, they won't be invited to xyz event, they're not apart of the family, the family don't want to speak to them (which is fine, i don't need reasons why, we all know, doesn't matter), iceland, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda. so just find a place to put them behind a pillar so the camera can't see them and call it a day.

in fact, since they only want attention and etc as claimed, tell them their only seats are behind a pillar, they know they won't be able to use the event for whatever, they reject coming and all parties are happy knowing they won't have to deal with each other. everybody wins

The only one who has spoken directly about Coronation, working for the BRF/Commonwealth is Harry, translate that to desperate to comeback and be in.

From the BRF, an email to 'save the date' by a top BRF employee email address confirmed by the Sussex spokesperson.

And as I said, for me, source's are pot = kettle

Harry isn't desperate to get back but we can agree to disagree. Being willing to work in the Commonwealth but rejecting the UK because of the media isn't despreate...to get back but that's in my view. Also, he didn't randomly say that, he was asked in an interview. Let's not leave out context, he isn't going from place to place saying "I want back in and etc" he was asked, what he would be willing to do.

I also didn't say that they didn't confirm they had a save the date-email but at least it was them not sources.

What I did comment on was this whole idea (because it's been referenced by more than one paper from the British media) that there are two plans depending on if they go or not. When the story has been no really wants them there anyway, so just find a pillar and sit them behind it or tell them they're going behind a pillar, they can reject coming and then all parties will be happy.

So it's a conversation about there's no need to make two plans or anything, since they won't be apart, just sit them somewhere or if they tell the Sussex's are all about taking the spotlight then tell them that they're going behind a pillar, they can reject coming and then no one has to worry about the day of.

He could have said 'no' to both questions, but he didn't, he actually expanded.

Invalidating sources, we wouldn't have historical accounts that turned out to be true in many instances. We also wouldn't have solved uniform cases by interviewing 'sources' (witnesses).

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 23, 2023, 02:14:45 PM
And as I said, for me, source's are pot = kettle

Harry isn't desperate to get back but we can agree to disagree. Being willing to work in the Commonwealth but rejecting the UK because of the media isn't despreate...to get back but that's in my view. Also, he didn't randomly say that, he was asked in an interview. Let's not leave out context, he isn't going from place to place saying "I want back in and etc" he was asked, what he would be willing to do.

I also didn't say that they didn't confirm they had a save the date-email but at least it was them not sources.

What I did comment on was this whole idea (because it's been referenced by more than one paper from the British media) that there are two plans depending on if they go or not. When the story has been no really wants them there anyway, so just find a pillar and sit them behind it or tell them they're going behind a pillar, they can reject coming and then all parties will be happy.

So it's a conversation about there's no need to make two plans or anything, since they won't be apart, just sit them somewhere or if they tell the Sussex's are all about taking the spotlight then tell them that they're going behind a pillar, they can reject coming and then no one has to worry about the day of.

I do think it?s a contradictory (some might say desperate) to say that the ball is in their court and hope that they?re willing to sit down and have a talk before attending the coronation and then not have that happen and still consider going. On top of the lack of security he claims makes it impossible for his family to visit the UK.

While I?m sure the sentiment amongst a lot of the family is ?let?s place them by a pillar,? it?s too important an event to leave up to chance. This isn?t really strange. Contingency plans are in place for any big event.

Let's just say no sources but Harry himself, no apology to Meghan, no attendance.

So, IF they show up, the sussexes will sell to Netflix they received an apology, If they don't attend, the family is racist.

As I said weeks ago, the couple have mastered con artist ways, they use every situation to make it a victory or a victimhood with whatever moves from the BRF, they use every single piece as Netflix worth content, it's a game for them.  Evil is evil, they need the money, they don't care if their popularity in both countries has gone down to negative numbers, they don't care if they are caught. They were caught out at the Oprah, they didn't shy away, they keep on going even if they are outed.

As long as the couple CAN get away with it, they will never stop, fact in psychology. The only stop can be by a uniform white or blue or death. Strong words but true.

Still, I say offer them the pillar and see the response.

I also like the idea of just zooming in, someone can even be in charge of pressing the top laptop down in curtesy fashion.

True or not, it's in very bad taste to say they can only be stopped by death when....they've had legit death threats against them, kids in included. '

And with that, I'll be bowing out of this conversation for a while because that's just crossing a line.

It's a psychology fact about people with ''no boundaries'' living in the fast lane.  All of them live without a care about image, society, how will I look like.  Sorry if you got triggered.

I HAVE to add that the couple are a subject of discussion by serious medical websites and specialist too in areas of law and medicine.  So, it is not out of bounds to discuss what one reads.  That is why what I commented has been discussed and is a medical fact. Usually a normal person when caught, does shy away and never publicly lies again, but when a person does keep doing it, there is a serious problem of uniform or 6feetunder scenario.  I'm not inventing it, this is factual case studies documented worldwide since about 60 years ago.

Heritage lawyers in the USA will never EVER get the documentation from US immigration about Harry's Visa.  Let's just say that Harry is like the President son, Hunter Biden. Protected. Privilege. I can get away with it. I used my princely position son of a King. 

Why wouold his visa application become public?  Its unlikely that he's going to be sent home or refused a visa

Quote from: wannable on March 23, 2023, 03:21:38 PM
It's a psychology fact about people with ''no boundaries'' living in the fast lane.  All of them live without a care about image, society, how will I look like.  Sorry if you got triggered.

I HAVE to add that the couple are a subject of discussion by serious medical websites and specialist too in areas of law and medicine.  So, it is not out of bounds to discuss what one reads.  That is why what I commented has been discussed and is a medical fact. Usually a normal person when caught, does shy away and never publicly lies again, but when a person does keep doing it, there is a serious problem of uniform or 6feetunder scenario.  I'm not inventing it, this is factual case studies documented worldwide since about 60 years ago.

Dont know why you are bringing up  6 feet under, it is unkind and nasty IMO. and Harry and Meg DO care a lot what poeple think abouut htem, just they seem to have an elastic attitdue to the truth, like many people, and say what suits them at a given time. 

Do to the admission of coke, canabis and magic mushrooms.  The US forms have several questions about it. The US government made public 3 UK cases; 2 famous 1 random in the recent past historical. In the 3 cases, they can't apply for the next 10 years from rejection.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 23, 2023, 03:53:51 PM
Dont know why you are bringing up  6 feet under, it is unkind and nasty IMO. and Harry and Meg DO care a lot what poeple think abouut htem, just they seem to have an elastic attitdue to the truth, like many people, and say what suits them at a given time. 

Meghan said she was suicidal.   It doesn't matter if you believe her or not. After reading several medical experts, the belief can be; she was suicidal because of BRF bad treatment OR she gave out bad treatment (Bower and Low her bad treatment to royals and staff, whilst the 2 Sams and a Jason were actually recording it all) to an extent that she can be suicidal. Option Megxit. and let the bomb explode thousands of miles away.

I would find it quite unprofessional if BP just said, ?Whatever, stand by that trash can and we won?t make any considerations?. The reason for that is because this event isn?t about Meghan and Harry. This is an event that hasn?t happened in England since 1952. They?re not going to leave anything up to chance for fear that it could jeopardize smooth sailing the day of or the days leading up to it. And for what? A petty attempt to get back at two people who aren?t even working members of the RF?

They?ve done the professional thing to do when someone that has special requirements delays an RSVP. Plan as if they?re coming. Now, I?ll give Harry and Meghan the benefit of the doubt and say that this delay is about making sure the safety requirements are met, and the staff is working behind the scenes to see what can be done about it.

But I?ll still say, it?s rather strange to even consider going after making it clear that from your perspective, you?ve done all the right things and the family is just upset that you?ve called them out on everything they?ve done wrong. Especially considering it?s your son?s birthday and you?re thrilled to no longer be in the clutches of such a racist (beg your pardon, *unconsciously biased*) and unbending institution. All I?ve personally seen is the RF and BP kind of reacting to their erratic and inconsistent actions, I?m not seeing any instigation on their part.

The onus isn't on Charles or William. The Sussexes are invited. They also are playing the game, killing them with kindness. Whatever the Sussexes do, they earn money by selling content but with a price of getting disliked by more people, that army is growing.

I'm full on 'no sources' straight from the horses mouth in reference to Harry Coronation/Commonwealth and Meghan with her Suicidal thoughts.

Just in case, I'm in no war with the RIF community, I'm just taking the pot, the kettle, the sources suck so, here we are.

BP sent an email
Harry is negotiating HIS and the family participation, hence my latest comment the onus is not on Charles or William.  Harry's negotiations are being media published,   it helps to gauge the public interest and sentiment, unfavorable by the way. It is not going as Harry wants it to go. Will expand on a later date.

My only admittance is I do discuss via whatsapp the royals and the sussexes with a fleetstreet friend we discovered each other via facebook after studying highschool together, there will be certain things I will not comment or any furthering about certain issues that get people triggered or angry.

Harry and Meghan are not grateful with just an invitation, when Harry decided he has to ALSO negotiate, call it hostage or blackmail, the press called it out NOT ME...now google hostage or blackmail negotiations...there are 3 type cases from criminals to mental illness derranged people.

The New York Post really has it on them.

Quote
Why Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are driving four hours to hang out in Hollywood

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could have easily used a secret ?celebrity door? when they arrived for dinner at one of Los Angeles? most exclusive private clubs.

Instead, a source said, the couple were happy to walk up to the front entrance of the San Vicente Bungalows, a chic West Hollywood hotspot owned by hotelier Jeff Klein, where they were caught on camera by waiting photographers.

It's their time, if they wanted to drive 8 hours to and from, day completed.

Quote from: wannable on March 26, 2023, 12:19:56 AM
The New York Post really has it on them.

It's their time, if they wanted to drive 8 hours to and from, day completed.

It is THEIR time and money. Nobody else?s business. And how does the NY Post or other enquirers know how the Sussexes get to LA and back? They could have had private business in the city for two or three days, driving up one day and driving back a couple of days later.

They could have ?gasp? even flown to LA and back by plane or helicopter. They could have been staying with friends there for a few days. And they also had and have the right to use whichever door to the club they felt like using.

Sheesh, what a thing to sneer about. As if newspaper executives and personalities never have the spotlight, or attend expensive clubs!

Quote from: wannable on March 23, 2023, 05:06:23 PM
I'm full on 'no sources' straight from the horses mouth in reference to Harry Coronation/Commonwealth and Meghan with her Suicidal thoughts.

Just in case, I'm in no war with the RIF community, I'm just taking the pot, the kettle, the sources suck so, here we are.

BP sent an email
Harry is negotiating HIS and the family participation, hence my latest comment the onus is not on Charles or William.  Harry's negotiations are being media published,   it helps to gauge the public interest and sentiment, unfavorable by the way. It is not going as Harry wants it to go. Will expand on a later date.

My only admittance is I do discuss via whatsapp the royals and the sussexes with a fleetstreet friend we discovered each other via facebook after studying highschool together, there will be certain things I will not comment or any furthering about certain issues that get people triggered or angry.

Harry and Meghan are not grateful with just an invitation, when Harry decided he has to ALSO negotiate, call it hostage or blackmail, the press called it out NOT ME...now google hostage or blackmail negotiations...there are 3 type cases from criminals to mental illness derranged people.

I don't understand why it is appropriate to negotiate. This situation is certainly not how the King or anyone else ever imagined it to be, but the reality is that it isn't possible to make arrangements to fit everyone's satisfaction. The King must be very sad and disappointed, and I feel for him that the Coronation will be marred by all that is going on. But I don't think it is right to make matters worse by trying to meet Harry's wants and expectations.

The Telegraph reporting Harry is not expected to see his father while he is in the UK as he was told the King was "busy"

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 27, 2023, 12:02:00 PM
The Telegraph reporting Harry is not expected to see his father while he is in the UK as he was told the King was "busy"

Interesting! i am wondering if the trip to France having been cancelled, the King might have taken advantage of the unexpected empty diary to take on a project at Highgrove or just try to relax and restore his spirits. Or perhaps there is much more to it than that - perhaps it has something to do with Harry. Probably we won't be told about it in any case.             

I cant imagine why Charles woudl be expected to be eager to see Harry, he is a busy man and he must know that every meeting with H is likely to be fraught.  He will see him soemtimes but I dont think he will do it unless he's pscyhed up to do so.

Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 28, 2023, 02:57:14 AM
Interesting! i am wondering if the trip to France having been cancelled, the King might have taken advantage of the unexpected empty diary to take on a project at Highgrove or just try to relax and restore his spirits. Or perhaps there is much more to it than that - perhaps it has something to do with Harry. Probably we won't be told about it in any case.             

I've read that KCIII and QC are currently at Highgrove as their calendars would have been cleared for the State Visit. The King will have his red boxes to attend to, but  this is an unexpected and likely well appreciated break in their schedule.

I wish, William and Charles friends would stop going to the media on their behalf.

Either, stop sending sending friends out or tell your friends to stop talking on your behalf.

When the reports came out that Charles was too busy, it wasn't even stated that Harry ASKED to see his father. He just told him "I'm in London" So either Charles or his friends are centering Charles in Harry's life. He came for court and simply told the King he was in town, he didn't ask for an audience. The gal, of Charles to tell him he's too busy when he didn't even ask to meet him.

And then a friend for William running to the Daily Beast....like....at most he's getting a passing mention that his phone was hacked but Harry didn't ask to see him. And it's not Harry's fault that taking on the Daily Mail....would also mean the Royal Family because the Royal Family are too entangled with the tabloid media. From his father and step-mother hiring someone from the Daily Mail, members being pictured with the owner.

There isn't any opportunity for William to pass on seeing Harry....because Harry didn't ask to see him. And if people consider Harry and Meghan's friends going to the media, as speaking on their behalf. I do the same with the family, they have continued to allow their friends to go to the media when they could actually take "never complain, never explain to heart"

He'll be in the country for four days, focus on a legal battle with the media, there is no need for them to insert themselves into this. And if they didn't want the dealings with the tabloid media exposed, they shouldn't have gotten in bed.

But all of that being said, please, Charles and Williams friends, stop centering the two and pretending as if Harry gave more than a curtesy call saying he'd be in the country. He didn't ask to deal with them so the option of not saying anything (an option that's always thrown at Harry and Meghan) should be taken up by them.

It's been assumed that Harry was staying with friends, which is the safest bet for him. I hope he stays an extra day to pack up and move more things out of Frogmore.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 29, 2023, 01:57:02 PM
And it's not Harry's fault that taking on the Daily Mail....would also mean the Royal Family because the Royal Family are too entangled with the tabloid media. From his father and step-mother hiring someone from the Daily Mail, members being pictured with the owner.

That?s because the royal family isn?t just a family?it?s an institution. They have to deal with the media because there is a symbiotic relationship. That?s like saying, ?I wish Joe Biden would just stop dealing with the media.? He can?t. It doesn?t matter how mean they get. When you?re in a public position in a country with a free press, it is not a choice whether to deal with the media or not, it?s a necessity. That requires a give and take. The Daily Mail is one of the biggest papers in the country; you can?t just pretend they don?t exist.

Harry can fight them all day, every day if he wants to?as the private citizen he now is. He can call them names, sue them till the cows come home, ban their reporters from his events. Whatever he wants. However, as public figures, the RF have to have a more nuanced relationship with papers like the Mail. Charles and William do not exist as single persons; they represent the monarchy.

And I can only speak for myself, but if someone sent me a message saying, ?I?m in town,? there?s an implicit message that might make me have to explain my whereabouts. Also pretty easy to check whether the King is in London and what he and Prince William?s schedule is.

Know what, if it's fine for them to hate or dislike or whatever the Sussex's, I just wish the family, firm and media would be more upfront, as upfront as Harry is. If you hate them, don't invite them. It's really that simple. If you do not trust them, don't invite them. But don't invite them, just so you can get the pleasure of subbing them. It's childish and petty and the media itself and the narrative that is coming from the palace grows more and more unhinged.

I really hope, they reject going even if I know it's a 50/50 because it's what everyone really wants and then I can enjoy the following weeks of "HOW DARE THEY SNUB THE KING."

Hopefully, Harry tells them that he's busy.


There is dealing with the media in formal press statements and being in bed with the tabloids and the royal rota.

A monarchy that is bed and hiring people from right-wing, racist papers...it says a lot about the monarchy. There is a way to interact with the press without being bff's but when the press has the dirt, it's hard to untangle, still, they made their beds. Reports don't have to be banned but they don't need lunches, or meet and greets or riding on plans with the royals. There is a way to interact with media without treating them like best friends and having on lines. But they want favorable reporting, they don't want any serious reporting, so they befriend and get in bed and to CURRY favorable reporting....which means access and deals.

Joe Biden, has a white house press secretary who speaks on his behalf most of the time. He does have the white house press thing but it's all media. He's not nearly as cozy with CNN has Camilla is with the Daily Mail.

It's not comparable at all. 

The royals aren't just giving access to events, there is no harm in that, they give access to themselves and to family members, so it works in there favor. That is vastly different to Joe Biden, there is no way to say that they're the same in that sense. And if they're willing to have a very close, personal and not PROFESSIONAL relationship with a paper like the Daily Mail, it doesn't look good. I wouldn't be opposed to a professional relationship but it's not that.

And for me, if someone who I didn't have a good relationship with is telling me their in town for a court case and haven't mentioned seeing me. Then I wouldn't be having people brief that I was too busy. At most, it'd be "I was informed that so and so would be in the country." Saying your busy is assuming that they want to have an audience with you.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 29, 2023, 01:57:02 PM
I wish, William and Charles friends would stop going to the media on their behalf.

Either, stop sending sending friends out or tell your friends to stop talking on your behalf.

When the reports came out that Charles was too busy, it wasn't even stated that Harry ASKED to see his father. He just told him "I'm in London" So either Charles or his friends are centering Charles in Harry's life. He came for court and simply told the King he was in town, he didn't ask for an audience. The gal, of Charles to tell him he's too busy when he didn't even ask to meet him.

A

you really beleive evertying that's in the papers?

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 29, 2023, 03:03:25 PM
Know what, if it's fine for them to hate or dislike or whatever the Sussex's, I just wish the family, firm and media would be more upfront, as upfront as Harry is. If you hate them, don't invite them. It's really that simple. If you do not trust them, don't invite them. But don't invite them, just so you can get the pleasure of subbing them. It's childish and petty and the media itself and the narrative that is coming from the palace grows more and more unhinged.

I really hope, they reject going even if I know it's a 50/50 because it's what everyone really wants and then I can enjoy the following weeks of "HOW DARE THEY SNUB THE KING."

Hopefully, Harry tells them that he's busy.


There is dealing with the media in formal press statements and being in bed with the tabloids and the royal rota.

A monarchy that is bed and hiring people from right-wing, racist papers...it says a lot about the monarchy. There is a way to interact with the press without being bff's but when the press has the dirt, it's hard to untangle, still, they made their beds. Reports don't have to be banned but they don't need lunches, or meet and greets or riding on plans with the royals. There is a way to interact with media without treating them like best friends and having on lines. But they want favorable reporting, they don't want any serious reporting, so they befriend and get in bed and to CURRY favorable reporting....which means access and deals.

Joe Biden, has a white house press secretary who speaks on his behalf most of the time. He does have the white house press thing but it's all media. He's not nearly as cozy with CNN has Camilla is with the Daily Mail.

It's not comparable at all. 

The royals aren't just giving access to events, there is no harm in that, they give access to themselves and to family members, so it works in there favor. That is vastly different to Joe Biden, there is no way to say that they're the same in that sense. And if they're willing to have a very close, personal and not PROFESSIONAL relationship with a paper like the Daily Mail, it doesn't look good. I wouldn't be opposed to a professional relationship but it's not that.

And for me, if someone who I didn't have a good relationship with is telling me their in town for a court case and haven't mentioned seeing me. Then I wouldn't be having people brief that I was too busy. At most, it'd be "I was informed that so and so would be in the country." Saying your busy is assuming that they want to have an audience with you.

Sorry, but press secretaries and their staff have relationships with journalists all the time. As do politicians. It?s the norm. There?s also all kinds of sources that journalists use to find information that don?t necessary come from traditional places. What you just described is literally the relationship between public figures and journalists. Yes, they give certain journalists access some times and not others. It?s just how media works. Now, you can like or dislike it, but to pretend like the Royal Family is the only institution that does this is just factually incorrect.

And as Amabel said before, just because some paper writes that a source close to such and such said something doesn?t mean it came from a friend of theirs. Otherwise everything that?s said in the papers about Meghan and Harry would also be true.

And I really cannot stress this enough: the Royal Family is not just a regular family. It?s an institution. There?s a reason its nickname is The Firm. They must always pay mind to how things will look to the public because that?s inherent to their survival as a monarchy. They can?t just do the petty thing so they can feel good about it. They have to do the polite thing. That means they will invite the Sussexes, no matter how much they use the RF for their own benefit and bad mouth it. The King cannot just behave like the petulant one. He has to rise above.

The people who look ridiculous in this is the Sussexes themselves not the RF. It should be noted that they?re the ones that haven?t declined the invitation. After all that talk of wanting apologies and wanting to be free from it all and safety being tantamount. I suppose not when the biggest royal event in almost a century (with all those cameras) is in play.

IF Harry is crying because 'friends' of Charles and William are stating that one is in Highgrove and the latter is at Anmer, well  :teehee:

The aging and in decline group (AKA the 6 aging and in decline celebs) would actually prefer a Hitler style reporting, IOW their own Communications sends the article and Hello! and People print it just as it is. The way USA The Cut perceived the couple, i.e. like any UK journalist doing their job writing what they perceive is what has these in decline group angry. Half of them got caught literally with their pants down in a public area or sold by a prostitute.

All the aging in decline group, in their ''initial'' statement are IN the case because of Gavin, it turns out Gavin today in his detailed statement denies any and all of these people. The rumor today is half of them are going to default.

Also something to note is how convenient it is that paparazzi catch the Sussexes doing things like going to restaurants after the Frogmore news broke, handing out food to the homeless, but somehow can?t catch Harry flying to the U.K. until he?s at the court. It?s almost as if it?s not a coincidence that the photographers are there at these opportune moments?

Every public figure who wants their name in the news plays the same game. I actually found it quite amusing that Harry thought it was some sort of ?gotcha? moment when he revealed that *gasp* the RF are in bed with the media. Anyone who knows anything about media relations knows this to be true of every major star, celebrity, politician, institution, company, and government figure whose name is regularly in the papers. Indeed there?s an entire industry based around it. Spare me (pun intended) the fake outrage from those two. The only revelation I learned was how consumed they both were with getting top billing.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 29, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
That?s because the royal family isn?t just a family?it?s an institution. They have to deal with the media because there is a symbiotic relationship. That?s like saying, ?I wish Joe Biden would just stop dealing with the media.? He can?t. It doesn?t matter how mean they get. When you?re in a public position in a country with a free press, it is not a choice whether to deal with the media or not, it?s a necessity. That requires a give and take. The Daily Mail is one of the biggest papers in the country; you can?t just pretend they don?t exist.

Harry can fight them all day, every day if he wants to?as the private citizen he now is. He can call them names, sue them till the cows come home, ban their reporters from his events. Whatever he wants. However, as public figures, the RF have to have a more nuanced relationship with papers like the Mail. Charles and William do not exist as single persons; they represent the monarchy.

And I can only speak for myself, but if someone sent me a message saying, ?I?m in town,? there?s an implicit message that might make me have to explain my whereabouts. Also pretty easy to check whether the King is in London and what he and Prince William?s schedule is.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that the monarchy and other public institutions in the United Kingdom like other democracies, do have a symbiotic relationship with their respective nations' free press. Unlike nations that have a very centralized form of government that controls the media, the United Kingdom permits their citizens with the opportunity to read, listen and watch the information provided by their various media organizations.
Also thank you for pointing out that as public figures the senior royals do have a higher obligation to share information about their calendars to the nation that supports them. The monarch/consort, the adult heir/spouse and to some extent, those who are Counsellors of State are also among this group. Likewise, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet and other high ranking members of the British Government have an equal responsibility in maintaining a relationship with the nation's press.

Currently we know that the King and the Queen Consort are in Germany on their first outgoing State Visit. The Prince and Princess of Wales are reportedly in Norfolk with their children who are on their Easter break until mid-April. The Duke of Sussex is in the UK for the preliminary hearing of the suit against ANL.

does Harry not realise how his own staff must have worked to make him appear like a reasonably nice jolly young chap, when he was younger? 

^ I think he felt he was thrown to the wolves for William?s sake. Ignoring the fact that it was his own ridiculous behavior that got him into those messes in the first place. Those messes that were dutifully cleaned up by those press secretaries he despises so much. Oh, the irony.

They did more than that.  THey made him seem charming and good natured, which he has now revealed that he really isnt.

Agreed. I?d be sending them Christmas presents every year and thanking them profusely for having kept my image up for decades.

I think everyone has a choice. Harry doesn?t have to be part of the institution if he doesn?t want to. But his attempts to take over the narrative himself seem to have had an adverse effect. I really think he feels completely misunderstood by the ?naive public that are bamboozled by the evil press?. If only that evil press weren?t there, we?d all adore him and Meghan and see the light they try to bring to everything?It?s really quite amazing.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 29, 2023, 04:03:15 PM
does Harry not realise how his own staff must have worked to make him appear like a reasonably nice jolly young chap, when he was younger? 

I don't get the impression that he truly understands and appreciates what they did for them even if he's managed to maintain a good relationship with them over the years ie: Mark Dwyer, Edward Lane Fox, his RPOs etc...I'm currently reading Spare and I have to admit that while I recognize that Harry can be funny, generous and caring at times,   I'm simultaneously  saddened and surprised at his lack of personal responsibility.
I'm currently at a point where he's decided to return to seeing a therapist and she points out her concerns  that he's still "trapped in 1997." Honestly, he often appears to have halted his emotional maturity at that age. :no:

That?s exactly how I would describe how I see him. It?s like everything is viewed from the perspective of his mother?s life and experience. It seems so unhealthy, but that?s all up to him to figure out.

I feel empathy for him, but I don?t believe being empathetic equates to avoiding reality to spare someone?s feelings. Learning to take responsibility for one?s actions and understanding that choices have consequences isn?t the most fun thing, but it does absolute wonders for your relationships.

It?s like he seems to understand only how things affect him. The current trial is an example. I?ll not go into the trial itself because that?s for another thread, but I saw how one component of his claim is how hurtful it was for him to think that a friend of his was selling stories to the media. True enough and completely agreed. But doesn?t he see that that?s exactly what he?s doing with his family? That cognitive dissonance is amazing to me, especially for a man his age.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 29, 2023, 04:34:19 PM
That?s exactly how I would describe how I see him. It?s like everything is viewed from the perspective of his mother?s life and experience. It seems so unhealthy, but that?s all up to him to figure out.

I feel empathy for him, but I don?t believe being empathetic equates to avoiding reality to spare someone?s feelings. Learning to take responsibility for one?s actions and understanding that choices have consequences isn?t the most fun thing, but it does absolute wonders for your relationships.

It?s like he seems to understand only how things affect him. The current trial is an example. I?ll not go into the trial itself because that?s for another thread, but I saw how one component of his claim is how hurtful it was for him to think that a friend of his was selling stories to the media. True enough and completely agreed. But doesn?t he see that that?s exactly what he?s doing with his family? That cognitive dissonance is amazing to me, especially for a man his age.

:goodpost:

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 29, 2023, 04:34:19 PM
That?s exactly how I would describe how I see him. It?s like everything is viewed from the perspective of his mother?s life and experience. It seems so unhealthy, but that?s all up to him to figure out.

I feel empathy for him, but I don?t believe being empathetic equates to avoiding reality to spare someone?s feelings. Learning to take responsibility for one?s actions and understanding that choices have consequences isn?t the most fun thing, but it does absolute wonders for your relationships.

It?s like he seems to understand only how things affect him. The current trial is an example. I?ll not go into the trial itself because that?s for another thread, but I saw how one component of his claim is how hurtful it was for him to think that a friend of his was selling stories to the media. True enough and completely agreed. But doesn?t he see that that?s exactly what he?s doing with his family? That cognitive dissonance is amazing to me, especially for a man his age.

Beautifully written, and oh so true. I don't know if he'll figure this out, because he appears to be unable to understand what he is doing wrong or not doing right. I worry how this will be going forward.

Quote from: TLLK on March 29, 2023, 04:29:04 PM
I don't get the impression that he truly understands and appreciates what they did for them even if he's managed to maintain a good relationship with them over the years ie: Mark Dwyer, Edward Lane Fox, his RPOs etc...I'm currently reading Spare and I have to admit that while I recognize that Harry can be funny, generous and caring at times,   I'm simultaneously  saddened and surprised at his lack of personal responsibility.
I'm currently at a point where he's decided to return to seeing a therapist and she points out her concerns  that he's still "trapped in 1997." Honestly, he often appears to have halted his emotional maturity at that age. :no:

And to realize that all these years of others cleaning up after Harry and his antics is to realize it was all for show to make him look good while he really wasn't good at all, he played the people when at events for fools into thinking he was a nice guy who made fun of a disable woman for the fun of it to show off in front of his friends. Now the real *Harry* is showing himself and he is not a  nice guy unless it goes his way......really sad to see the *real Harry* for I liked the fake Harry very much, now, can't stand him as he has shown his *true* character and that is never to be trusted again.  Think he deserves an *Oscar* for his performance over the years before Meghan?

Quote from: Nightowl on April 01, 2023, 03:34:04 AM

And to realize that all these years of others cleaning up after Harry and his antics is to realize it was all for show to make him look good while he really wasn't good at all, he played the people when at events for fools into thinking he was a nice guy who made fun of a disable woman for the fun of it to show off in front of his friends. Now the real *Harry* is showing himself and he is not a  nice guy unless it goes his way......really sad to see the *real Harry* for I liked the fake Harry very much, now, can't stand him as he has shown his *true* character and that is never to be trusted again.  Think he deserves an *Oscar* for his performance over the years before Meghan?

I remember the years before Meghan, years when he wrote to vets and ex service personnel encouraging them in their endeavours on Twitter. They publicised these, not ELF or Jamie or any Aides. There were men in wheelchairs that he visited and who would greet him on Twitter, praising him on several occasions for him going to their flats and houses, helping them out with their physio and their worries. That wasn?t BP talking, or KP, it was Harry. He had close friendships with both Britons, Americans and others that he had met through his Walking with the Wounded endeavours and other charities. And it wasn?t PR.

As for Pat, this so-called disabled junior matron at Ludgrove, I find it extraordinary that the media who would have loved an interview one would have thought, have never tracked her down. Her records at the school must still be around. It is odd to say the least, that she, or friends and relatives of hers if she has passed, have never ever said anything in public about Pat, that no teachers or fellow medical staff, or men who were at Ludgrove as boys, have never expressed any opinion about this mysterious individual who supposedly was so ragged by the pupils. No memories from anyone. Very odd indeed!

So strange that one would think that Pat isn?t or never was a real person at all.

I would like to think that the school has records somewhere stashed in storage of long ago members and students of the school. And some people like their privacy when they know how the world's crazy operate and maybe to this day do not want to be involved with the people as they can read and see for themselves just how nasty and mean some are......I don't think throwing assumptions out there that she is a fake or a non- person by any means after all the school hired her and have records of her I bet somewhere.     I find it is always best to take a step back and wait and learn and listen to what others have to say.   As my sister used to tell me all the time, *there is no cure for stupid* and when a person tells lies and keep on with the same, well, that is just plain stupid as the only person looking bad is the person lying.

Quote from: Nightowl on April 01, 2023, 09:12:05 AM
I would like to think that the school has records somewhere stashed in storage of long ago members and students of the school. And some people like their privacy when they know how the world's crazy operate and maybe to this day do not want to be involved with the people as they can read and see for themselves just how nasty and mean some are......I don't think throwing assumptions out there that she is a fake or a non- person by any means after all the school hired her and have records of her I bet somewhere.     I find it is always best to take a step back and wait and learn and listen to what others have to say.   As my sister used to tell me all the time, *there is no cure for stupid* and when a person tells lies and keep on with the same, well, that is just plain stupid as the only person looking bad is the person lying.

?Long ago?? We aren?t talking here of 100 years ago or even 50. Harry was enrolled at Ludgrove in 1992. There were 50 staff at the school and an enrolment of approx 200 boys aged between 8 and 13. And yet nobody at that school, not a staff member, fellow medics or masters, or anybody who was at Harry?s year level or William?s has come out to defend Pat or even share memories of her? And the media, who made much of Harry?s private parts and first girlfriends, were curiously muted on the subject of Pat after they read ?Spare?. I wouldn?t be at all surprised if in fact they did some snooping and found nobody resident at Ludgrove who could remember a Pat at all.

I don?t think that people?s memories are that short.

Harry is in his late thirties. There would be many men now in their early thirties who would have been juniors at Ludgrove when Harry was there in the 1990s as well as older boys, pre teens. And yet nobody has memories of this woman. I find that very strange. Men in their eighties often remember their childhood and youth with great clarity, but not men in their thirties who attended Ludgrove only thirty years ago. Apparently!

Quote from: Curryong on April 01, 2023, 08:33:07 AM

As for Pat, this so-called disabled junior matron at Ludgrove, I find it extraordinary that the media who would have loved an interview one would have thought, have never tracked her down. Her records at the school must still be around. It is odd to say the least, that she, or friends and relatives of hers if she has passed, have never ever said anything in public about Pat, that no teachers or fellow medical staff, or men who were at Ludgrove as boys, have never expressed any opinion about this mysterious individual who supposedly was so ragged by the pupils. No memories from anyone. Very odd indeed!

So strange that one would think that Pat isn?t or never was a real person at all.

So why did Harry make up a person, largley to sneer at her looks and to tell everyone how funny it felt when he mocked her disability?  Surely that's a sign of some kind of mental problem.

Quote from: Nightowl on April 01, 2023, 03:34:04 AM

And to realize that all these years of others cleaning up after Harry and his antics is to realize it was all for show to make him look good while he really wasn't good at all, he played the people when at events for fools into thinking he was a nice guy who made fun of a disable woman for the fun of it to show off in front of his friends. Now the real *Harry* is showing himself and he is not a  nice guy unless it goes his way......really sad to see the *real Harry* for I liked the fake Harry very much, now, can't stand him as he has shown his *true* character and that is never to be trusted again.  Think he deserves an *Oscar* for his performance over the years before Meghan?

I was increasingly sceptical of Nice Harry,  I had begun to think some years ago that there was something wrong.. but he's proved me even more right than I originally thought. I didnt think he was outright nasty as he has proved himself to be, a lot of the time.

I meant to add ot the post on Pat that I could understand if H had made up a fictional beautiful young lady whom he had his first affair with.. that's not odd if foolish to want the world to think that your first love affair was with someone beautiful and charming, and not just some ordinary gal in a rumpled bed or a hayloft, but I cant understand why you would make up a middle aged woman, who was plain and grumpy and in pain, and then say that you still remembered what fun it was to laugh at her and mock her.  Perhaps Pat hasn't been talked bout by other pupils because they also mocked her and are ashamed of it, or she's now an older lady who is in even worse health and they and hte press dont want to look bad by going on about her, or mabye the woman is dead and they dont want to bring her up.

Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 31, 2023, 11:18:34 PM
Beautifully written, and oh so true. I don't know if he'll figure this out, because he appears to be unable to understand what he is doing wrong or not doing right. I worry how this will be going forward.

I?m not sure if he will either. The truth is some people remain self-centered throughout their entire life. There?s also the sticking point that he?s gotta make money for the majority of his life now. I?m not sure how else he can make it without cashing in on his connections. To my knowledge, he?s not a savvy businessman and his skills learned in the army likely wouldn?t yield millions. His real skill is being Prince Harry and that?s gotten him the most money.

I don?t envy him, to tell you the truth. While he may express a desire to break away from the RF and be his own person, that?s going to be difficult to truly accomplish whilst maintaining his lifestyle. ?Prince? and ?Duke of Sussex? is the cache, both socially and monetarily.

Quote from: Amabel2 on April 01, 2023, 09:52:09 AM
So why did Harry make up a person, largley to sneer at her looks and to tell everyone how funny it felt when he mocked her disability?  Surely that's a sign of some kind of mental problem.

I don?t know whether Pat is a real person or not. However, if she exists not one of the approximately 250 people, staff and boys at Ludgrove in Harry?s time have chosen to come out and say anything at all, favourable or unfavourable about this woman, not even her fellow matrons or the local doctor who must have been at the school occasionally.

Think about it. Would any reputable publishing house allow a woman to be named and her physical characteristics be described in such a way if there really was a Pat and she was in the physical condition described?That would set them up to be sued by her. Unless she is dead, in which case her loved ones could have come out and protested at the portrait.

If I had to guess, (and I and others have been thinking about this since Spare was published) I would say that Pat is an amalgam of the matrons and other staff who were there at the school at the time. Harry has exaggerated one or two of these people?s physical characteristics and uncaring qualities in order to paint a picture of his and his contemporaries? boarding school life as children at the time.

And I would also guess that all the Ludgrovians who attended the school at that time recognise that picture and the various tricks that they played on members of staff AT THE TIME. This is deliberately a child?s recollection.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...kle-earthquake

A statement on the couple's Archewell website shared: "With support from The Archewell Foundation, Humanity Crew?s mental health professionals in Turkey, in addition to helping aid workers on the ground, are able to continue their work providing psychological aid to alleviate trauma and shock; training local responders on providing mental health support; running support groups with adolescents; serving families through counselling; and working with non-governmental organizations to ensure culturally competent interventions.

"These two beloved organizations are committed to supporting communities in the region, and The Archewell Foundation is proud to have connected and uplifted them both as they do life-changing work."

Humanity Crew expressed their gratitude to Archewell on Instagram, writing: ""We are grateful for the ongoing support of The Archewell Foundation, which has been instrumental in helping us provide critical mental health support to those affected by the recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria."

Quote from: Curryong on April 01, 2023, 02:46:50 PM

Think about it. Would any reputable publishing house allow a woman to be named and her physical characteristics be described in such a way if there really was a Pat and she was in the physical condition described?That would set them up to be sued by her. Unless she is dead, in which case her loved ones could have come out and protested at the portrait.

If I had to guess, (and I and others have been thinking about this since Spare was published) I would say that Pat is an amalgam of the matrons and other staff who were there at the school at the time. Harry has exaggerated one or two of these people?s physical characteristics and uncaring qualities in order to paint a picture of his and his contemporaries? boarding school life as children at the time.

And I would also guess that all the Ludgrovians who attended the school at that time recognise that picture and the various tricks that they played on members of staff AT THE TIME. This is deliberately a child?s recollection.

frankly that is bizarre.  Harry makes up a woman who is in a weakened vulnerable state, tells the world she was plain and middle aged and did not make him "hot" and then proceeds to tell the world that he made fun of her to her face...and he's still going ha ha ha about her .....so he deliberately created an image of a woman whom it was unkind to mock and then told us al how he mocked her.

Even worse if this recollection was a fantasy in Harry's mind. From charming fake Harry to a repulsive real Harry.  SAD

Certainly an indication of a very odd mixed up frame of mind.  Making up a pretty girlfriend is one thing.  Making up a hate figure and telling the world how you made fun of her is another

Quote from: Curryong on April 01, 2023, 02:46:50 PM
I don?t know whether Pat is a real person or not. However, if she exists not one of the approximately 250 people, staff and boys at Ludgrove in Harry?s time have chosen to come out and say anything at all, favourable or unfavourable about this woman, not even her fellow matrons or the local doctor who must have been at the school occasionally.

Think about it. Would any reputable publishing house allow a woman to be named and her physical characteristics be described in such a way if there really was a Pat and she was in the physical condition described?That would set them up to be sued by her. Unless she is dead, in which case her loved ones could have come out and protested at the portrait.

If I had to guess, (and I and others have been thinking about this since Spare was published) I would say that Pat is an amalgam of the matrons and other staff who were there at the school at the time. Harry has exaggerated one or two of these people?s physical characteristics and uncaring qualities in order to paint a picture of his and his contemporaries? boarding school life as children at the time.

And I would also guess that all the Ludgrovians who attended the school at that time recognise that picture and the various tricks that they played on members of staff AT THE TIME. This is deliberately a child?s recollection.

I have no idea what you?re saying. Are you saying Harry made up this women? For what purpose? Are you suggesting Harry deliberately exaggerated some things, bend some truths to suit his own agenda? To make money. Hmm. How noble.

That seems to be the explaination.  I can't understand it.  Pat may well be dead and have no close relatives so that's why noone's come forward to say anything about her, and why the publishers felt they could describe her as plain and bad tempered with impunity. Or perhaps her friends or family just dont want to get into a media fight iwht someone like Harry if their relative is dead.
Anyway it seems that Harry's mocking attitude to a sick woman has not done him any bad with Invictus etc, you would think that people who are disabled veterans would be shocked that a man would make fun of a disabled woman and still laugh about it, years later and might not want him to be the patron of thier charity. 

Quote
Sources close to The Duke of Sussex have indicated that he was truthful on his visa application, suggesting that he disclosed his drug use, which has continued since he moved to the US in 2020.

Prince Harry may have to update US officials on his drug use in order to keep his visa (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/04/prince-harry-visa-drugs/)

Apparently Harry DID disclose that he continuous to use drugs and fill refill a new form saying he still does.

Quote
US immigration laws state that any foreigner ?determined to be a drug abuser? is classed as ?inadmissible? - though immigration officials can use their discretion to waive the rule.

He's a prince, the rule will be waived.

^I think the word ?abuser? probably allows for some discretion on the part of the immigration officer, so if he disclosed it, I?m not shocked it didn?t have any effect on his entry. I don?t know what the track record is on regular drug users being allowed entry into the United States though. I did hear that Nigella Lawson was barred from entry for a time after admitting *** use, but I?m afraid I?m not versed well-enough in that case to speak on it intelligently.

However, it does open up an interesting conversation. If we wanna talk about racism and privilege?something that Meghan and Harry have been congratulated for ?tackling??it does not escape me that people with a darker skin tone are often highly scrutinized in terms of drug use and abuse by US immigration.

That would actually be something he could point to that highlights how race affects perception.

He is a drug abuser, which means the 'habitual' taking of illegal drugs. 

^ No black UK citizen has been banned entry Visa to the USA, so far 3 white people, 2 famous 1 random.

The 3 are *** users. Harry said marihuana does nothing for him but *** does.
The *** is a Class A drug.

Well, there?s drug users and drug abusers, I?m saying US immigration gets to decide what they perceive as a drug abuser who should not enter the US.

I can?t speak for black UK citizens, but I know plenty of people from South and Central America are heavily scrutinized for any possible drug intake.

I saw the news from that apparently, Harry hasn't confirmed if he and his family are coming yet and the cut off date was Monday.

Their team hasn't been made.

Perfect.

I feel like we can take this all as them not going and everyone can stop talking about it. They missed the cut-off date and as non-working royals and non-important royals and royals who are disliked and unwanted by the family (which, hey, fair!) as "close friends of the family" "royal aids" "unnamed royal sources" and the Royal Rota, close friends of the RF say, they can be held to the same standard as other guests. You don't give us a yes or no, you don't have a seat. It works out for everyone.

Tho, If they did come, I realize I'm not worried about them being booed. In fact, I doubt that it'd be for them, it seems like members of the RF have that covered themselves but if they do show up, the media and those royal watching will be sure to try and pin it on them.


Harry, also isn't a drug abuser, as much as people want that narrative to be pushed. None of us are are his doctors or medical professionals that are actually in direct contact with him to make that judgement.

Saying and wishing it, doesn't make it true. No matter how much one might want it to be true. 

The 2 famous and 1 random UK ctizens did exactly the same as Harry publicly.  The random one was the most paid the price, she didn't say nothing publicly, she was denied a Visa because of a text message in whatsapp 2 years ago to a friend, she provided a blood test, cleared and her AA weekly meetings. Now, that the US has access to private messages is part of their Homeland Security, someone in twitter copy/pasted it. They can intervene phone calls, past text messages, etc.

Conclusion, if you're a random, you're totally doomed. If you're a famous musician and/or chef glorifying the use, you're also doomed. If you're a Prince of the UK system of government, you're waivered. Biden, the President, the son is in the same situation, other than being a US citizen, it's let's say media agreement to be saved by a possible savaging of that media, both CNN and Fox News are holding it, will probably release it once the president is gone. 

Bad deeds usually come out to the light of the public, sooner or later, never fails.

Quote from: wannable on April 06, 2023, 03:07:28 PM
Conclusion, if you're a random, you're totally doomed. If you're a famous musician and/or chef glorifying the use, you're also doomed. If you're a Prince of the UK system of government, you're waivered. Biden, the President, the son is in the same situation, other than being a US citizen, is let's say media agreement to be saved by a possible savaging of that media, both CNN and Fox News are holding it, will probably release it once the president is gone. 

Thems the rules. That?s where the word privilege comes into play. That?s my main sticking point with Harry. He focuses on all the ways he?s ?persecuted? while ignoring the fact that he wasn?t just born on third base, he was born with a home run already on the docket.

^^The latest rumor today is Harry will go, Meghan will stay home. Will they won't they is still a game until 6th May. A last minute show at the doors of Westminster would surely grab the headlines worldwide! But the consequences would be devastating for the duo.

What I don't know, but with story development - can comment IS will the couple keep playing the game of not RSVPing?! Surely they DO know the likes of the POTUS/FLOTUS did RSVP the wife, media power The Washington Post editor article stating the bad form of the couple, and the etc. of this is not a good look.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on April 06, 2023, 03:10:40 PM
Thems the rules. That?s where the word privilege comes into play. That?s my main sticking point with Harry. He focuses on all the ways he?s ?persecuted? while ignoring the fact that he wasn?t just born on third base, he was born with a home run already on the docket.

Yes, sorry, I just read your previous comment, I was only thinking about the racist part of IF a black person. But yes, a privileged person that his/her father is a power governing body as the example I just gave is in actual ''motion''. Harry is not a musician or a chef or a random, he is the son of a King.

^You know the irony of the whole thing is that if he admitted that and just moved on with his life, most people would find him a lot more likable. He can?t do anything about the fact that he?s the son of a king. He just is. There?s no need for him to apologize over it. But it?s the constant victim act whilst enjoying all that privilege that is so off-putting to a lot of people, myself included.

Disappointing, as I, at first, genuinely believed he might not be so wrapped up in the whole ?prince? thing. But that?s my mistake, not his.

A huge majority of nepo babies have that attitude.  There is a very teeny-weeny number of nepo babies that are not in that abuse the privilege status quo. 

Fortune 500 April issue have ID'd both sides of the nepo baby coin.  The best teeny weeny thumbs up for sweating/working like if they were poor in a good way without using their parents name and fortune to ''get there'' according to their analysis is Jessica Pegula, #3 WTA in the world tennis player, full credit to her, matter of fact she uses her own inherited money to help other female players with the condition that these players are poor and have the hard work attitude and talent to be a full time pro.  Hands down to her.  :notworthy: and that she is a she/female too as the Fortune 500 none abusive nepo baby. 

ETA: HistoryGirl I agree with you, IF nepo babies weren't so put it in your face, and just get along with it, which BTW, this group was also classified by Fortune 500, especially children from famous actor/actress stars that ADMIT to get a major role, but are mediocre, but don't mind stating it, but years go by - they aren't sticking the finger in the wound of the lines of people trying to get a part, are okay'd by society. 

The group of nepo baby shenanigans trashing left and right, especially family is the last group, undesired situation, Prince Harry.

I think gratitude and humility are key attributes in life because they?ll keep you grounded regardless of your circumstance?and help you adjust if ever you fall off the pedestal. His trouble is the inability to see how much he has because he?s too focused on what he hasn?t got.

True, but regretfully, Prince Harry hasn't showed that.  I Edited and added in my previous comment agreeing with you about Prince Harry with the IF's and But's.

Imagine IF Zara Anne Elizabeth Phillips, ''constantly' by her own mouth said to the media, sticking the finger to the public, I have horses because I'm rich, I live in a huge compound where every corner has a mansion, and the mansion to mansion distance needs to be done by a vehicle, walking is too far. I'm an olympic champion because my dad and mom have this lifestyle. Like EVERYONE knows she used this privilege, BUT she doesn't rub it in. It was said once or thrice by the UK MEdia, and she DIDN'T hit back or sulked or trashed the press, because she knows she's a nepo but proved her grit with working hard as an athlete.  I think this is the best example that I can provide from the British Royal Family. OR Prince William highschool ETON swimming instructors stating his i.e. 100 freestyle or butterfly ''record'' equates to he can be part of the GB swimming team, but William declined. End of, all the media reported it, wrote several times to get his attention, he stayed mute, didn't react, didn't ''feed'' the story.

^True, Zara is a good example of someone who has had unbelievable privilege, but she just gets on with it. Having heard her interviews, she also greatly credits her parents and upbringing for helping her achieve what she?s achieved. I?m sure her life has had challenges as well growing up as the granddaughter of a queen, but the positives clearly outweigh the negatives.

And it?s completely fine if the negatives were to outweigh the positives for Harry. That?s what I thought when he first announced he and Meghan were leaving. He didn?t seem to enjoy the job all that much toward the end, so I thought he?d made a wise choice to leave. But to constantly bring up the RF is just tacky, in my opinion. It?s something a third tier celebrity would do to prove they?re relevant.

That?s actually a really good word to sum up what I personally feel about the Sussexes: tacky.  Not evil, not wicked, not even particularly that harmful. Just tacky.

Gratitude and humility as you said. Very wise of Zara and might I add Prince William too, in his case, via his father's senior staff protecting William (and as we've all discussed lately about Harry not being grateful with what his father's staff did for him protecting him, etc. then continued by W/H staff, where the UK media as I understand DO have some stories that weren't published but they are sitting on it, Harry must be crazy) , he, William was what 17 then.  They didn't hit back with the media doing their best to keep the story live, using a bit of nastiness of his privilege. If I recall well, Charles CH staff (before W and H had officially their own staff) diverted the story to William's friends joking about William's body with ''that Speedo' shorts. Light hearted situation, ends. William is going to University.

Yesterday a famous NBA black player said he learned to play ''better' watching youtube of a famous white NBA player of the long distant past who was a NEPO = someone with money who lived with rich dad and mom who has a huge garden and a special shed converted into a basketball court, who after school, practiced and practiced.  This white NBA retired nepo doesn't wave it left and right like a flag, he is humbled, said it once (yesterday) and the previous 20 years ago, didn't even talk about it. Gratitude and humility.

Publicly, I always find it best not to focus on oneself. And when you do, try to have some form of perspective. I think private conversations with very close friends or a therapist are different. You kind of work through your thoughts and actions and you can say things that you might come to regret should they ever get out because you can trust that they won?t be repeated. Once they?re said out loud for the public record, they can?t be unheard. Churchill?s quote is apt: ?We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out.?

Look at some of the things we heard Charles say during the War of the Waleses. There are still people that will not forget them. You have to be very careful when you speak publicly and try to think in terms of the future, not just for instant gratification.

 :goodpost:

^It?s a very old school way of thinking though. Now, all is meant for public consumption and every opportunity to monetize something private is exploited.

The Royal Family twitter limited comments under the post about Charles and Camilla, which I understand, they don't want to be swarmed with stuff.

It would've been nice if that grace had been extended to Meghan so people weren't allowed to leave racist comments or Archie or Lili when post about them popped up. They learned how to limit nasty comments or hide them during the Jubilee when the Queen was alive, anything nasty or even just comments talking about the tax-payer but racist comments about the kids were allowed to be up.

One rule of them, another for Meghan and the kids.

^Have comments been allowed for the Wales children? Or is it just the Sussex children whose posts allow comments?

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on April 06, 2023, 05:05:24 PM
^It?s a very old school way of thinking though. Now, all is meant for public consumption and every opportunity to monetize something private is exploited.

I'd add not only words but actions, Nepo baby suing the Home office for RPO's  :hehe: :wacko:  Like stay with it -hire private security, don't sue the tax paid government.  I mean Harry has so many nepo baby throwing the toys examples, which put off the public in it's majority, 75% are not ''privileged''.


^^ I'm not blocked, I can comment on any/all The Royal Family twitter account tweets, I just checked seconds ago. My algorythm is friendly, never been blocked or have I received a message from Twitter that I broke a rule. Usual things that may happen, more enforced now by Elon Musk. Hate speech if reported will be reviewed and the twitter user at best will be out of service for 3 to 6 months, a second hard core hate abuse, will be forbiden forever. The twitter team has a entire floor with people dedicated to this.  They will of course advise the official twitter user, i.e. The Royal Family IF they've been targeted.

^Yes, both young families have been targeted. 

BTW, yesterday evening the news is King Charles team, include here MI5 is dealing with a 100plus list of wackos....before the Coronation. So these dangerous 100+are   on the loose IF it weren't for the coronation?!

Quote from: changemhysoul on April 06, 2023, 05:05:30 PM
The Royal Family twitter limited comments under the post about Charles and Camilla, which I understand, they don't want to be swarmed with stuff.

It would've been nice if that grace had been extended to Meghan so people weren't allowed to leave racist comments or Archie or Lili when post about them popped up. They learned how to limit nasty comments or hide them during the Jubilee when the Queen was alive, anything nasty or even just comments talking about the tax-payer but racist comments about the kids were allowed to be up.

One rule of them, another for Meghan and the kids.

@changemhysoul - It's possible that you missed this news from 2019 when  it was announced that the couples'  (then Cambridges) and Sussexes shared social media accounts were being moderated more closely due to the comments directed at both Meghan and Catherine. Now as for the account for The Royal Family, the BRF have been trying to work with the social media companies to end abuse towards members of the family. However it should be noted that the BRF cannot completely control what is posted on these platforms.

Here's the official policy from the BRF website. https://www.royal.uk/social-media-community-guidelines

QuoteBy engaging with our social media channels you agree to follow these guidelines.

Comments must not:

    Contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence.
    Promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.

    Breach any of the terms of any of the social media platforms themselves.
    Be off-topic, irrelevant or unintelligible.
    Contain any advertising or promote any services.

From 2019 Royal family issues new social media guidelines to deter trolls | Monarchy | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/04/royal-family-issues-new-social-media-guidelines-to-deter-trolls)

QuoteSocial media trolls who post offensive or abusive messages on the royal family?s platforms now face being blocked and may be reported to police under new guidelines published by Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.

The move follows revelations last month of high levels of vitriol and abuse, especially aimed at the Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex.

Some of the worst, hate-filled personal abuse is said to be between competing camps that support Kate or Meghan, fuelled by some media reporting that pits the women as rivals.

The guidelines have been introduced to try to maintain a safe environment on channels run by the three households, and call for users to show ?courtesy, kindness and respect?.

The royal family?s website warns that the palaces reserve the right to ?hide or delete? comments, ?as well as block users who do not follow these guidelines??We also reserve the right to send any comments we deem appropriate to law enforcement authorities for investigation as we feel necessary or is required by law.?

Last month it was revealed Kensington Palace staff were spending several hours a week moderating and deleting posts, which include racist and sexist abuse as well as threatening remarks.

Kensington Palace had sought help from Instagram to deal with the problem. According to a senior source, palace policy is not to take down comments merely critical of the royals.

While some of the abuse has been directed at the two royal women, more of it was arguments between rival fans, particularly on the Kensington Palace Instagram account, which has 7 million followers, with some posts attracting in excess of 1,000 comments. Neither Kate nor Meghan has a public personal social media account.The rules, which were listed on the royal family?s website, call for comments not to ?contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence? or ?promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age?.

Blocking undesirable comments is a policy often adopted by high-profile personalities. But last year, when the US president, Donald Trump, blocked some users from his presidential Twitter account, a New York district court ruled it unconstitutional because the account was deemed an official political channel, and so blocking violated first amendment rights to participate in a ?public forum?..

Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton abuse: Royal family issues social media guidelines | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/uk/royal-family-social-media-guidelines-scli-gbr-intl/index.html)

Prince William ?Baffled? by Prince Harry?s ?Difficult? Coronation Behavior (https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-baffled-by-prince-harrys-difficult-coronation-behavior)

I'm taking this The Daily Beast article with a side-eye but the fact that the media has been briefed for months and the media has been telling us for months that William HATES Harry and Meghan, and William won't invite Harry to HIS coronation (I don't you could actually pay Harry to go. Most affection went towards his Grandmother. There was acceptance that his father is who is, he's most hurt by William, so he'd probs be playing polo that day.)

How incandescent with rage William is every other day, how he doesn't want to SEE Harry, about how they want them ice-outed and frozen out and etc and etc and etc.

Which, I say is valid! Harry released his book but to say that to the media, to allow friends to run around saying that, you can't be confused by the fact that Harry would really consider if it was worth it. Like, they want him to come with his family.....just so his family can be snubbed.....laughable really.

I only side-eye because Skyes has some deep sources within KP and I don't think Wiliam cares if everyone knows he hates his brother now (again! fair! I'm not trying to take that feeling away from him) but it's really, really, really, really, silly to question why someone might not show up to even in which, everyone related to the event has been telling that media that they want them to be treated like dirt.

Like for months...all we've been hearing is how Harry is just dead to William and etc and etc but everyone is still shocked when Harry won't comeback when ordered? Just because people thinks he will.

Funny. It's funny.

Not sending an RSVP by the date provided is exceptionally rude behavior, whether the event is your cousin?s wedding or the coronation. I don?t think Tom Sykes has to look very far to try to come up with how William would feel about Harry?s behavior because it?s something that is universally acknowledged as selfish behavior.

I don?t know that Harry is trying to be difficult for difficult?s sake, but I can?t think of any other reason why you wouldn?t just RSVP ?no? like any other polite individual would. That?s the reason why anyone is even questioning it. Had he just done that from the get-go, no one would have to wonder. If the family is such an awful, terrible, abusive, lot full of vipers and liars, then why would they even consider going? If my family were as toxic as he claims the RF are, my RSVP would have been sent the very day I received the invitation. ?No, thank you.?

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on April 07, 2023, 05:00:54 PM
Not sending an RSVP by the date provided is exceptionally rude behavior, whether the event is your cousin?s wedding or the coronation. I don?t think Tom Sykes has to look very far to try to come up with how William would feel about Harry?s behavior because it?s something that is universally acknowledged as selfish behavior.

I don?t know that Harry is trying to be difficult for difficult?s sake, but I can?t think of any other reason why you wouldn?t just RSVP ?no? like any other polite individual would. That?s the reason why anyone is even questioning it. Had he just done that from the get-go, no one would have to wonder. If the family is such an awful, terrible, abusive, lot full of vipers and liars, then why would they even consider going? If my family were as toxic as he claims the RF are, my RSVP would have been sent the very day I received the invitation. ?No, thank you.?

I have to agree that not sending a simple "Yes" or "No" is extremely rude and immature. Both of them can certainly relate to how stressful it was when Meghan's father Thomas Markle was behaving the week of their wedding in 2018. Harry himself refers to the situation in Spare.  If neither feels comfortable attending, they're perfectly capable of sending their regrets.

Quote from: TLLK on April 07, 2023, 08:00:05 PM
I have to agree that not sending a simple "Yes" or "No" is extremely rude and immature. Both of them can certainly relate to how stressful it was when Meghan's father Thomas Markle was behaving the week of their wedding in 2018. Harry himself refers to the situation in Spare.  If neither feels comfortable attending, they're perfectly capable of sending their regrets.

How do we know that the Sussexes haven?t RSVP?d to the Coronation invitation? We do know that the couple and BP have been in regular communication since before the invitations were formally sent to anyone.

The only people who are saying that they haven?t replied is the Press, who are not likely to know unless BP tells them, there is no obligation on Harry and Meghan to rush and tell the media anything, after the way journalists have treated them for nearly four years. The media were full of stories about Harry and Meghan were not going to receive an invitation at all until the Sussexes told them they?d been e-mailed by people at BP. Before that the media obviously knew nothing.

Journalists are more than capable, because they?ve done it already on multiple occasions, of stating untruths about the couple ?spreading chaos?, ?not talking? to various royals or royals not talking to them, doing this, not doing that, when the stories are completely untrue and they know nothing or have completely made things up.

After the Sussexes spoke about the emails the Press then turned tack and there were dozens of stories about the couple imposing tons of conditions on their attendance. We ?know? that how? Oh yes, the tabloids told us! Nuff said!

Quote from: changemhysoul on April 07, 2023, 04:51:37 PM
Prince William ?Baffled? by Prince Harry?s ?Difficult? Coronation Behavior (https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-baffled-by-prince-harrys-difficult-coronation-behavior)

I'm taking this The Daily Beast article with a side-eye but the fact that the media has been briefed for months and the media has been telling us for months that William HATES Harry and Meghan, and William won't invite Harry to HIS coronation (I don't you could actually pay Harry to go. Most affection went towards his Grandmother. There was acceptance that his father is who is, he's most hurt by William, so he'd probs be playing polo that day.)

How incandescent with rage William is every other day, how he doesn't want to SEE Harry, about how they want them ice-outed and frozen out and etc and etc and etc.

Which, I say is valid! Harry released his book but to say that to the media, to allow friends to run around saying that, you can't be confused by the fact that Harry would really consider if it was worth it. Like, they want him to come with his family.....just so his family can be snubbed.....laughable really.

I only side-eye because Skyes has some deep sources within KP and I don't think Wiliam cares if everyone knows he hates his brother now (again! fair! I'm not trying to take that feeling away from him) but it's really, really, really, really, silly to question why someone might not show up to even in which, everyone related to the event has been telling that media that they want them to be treated like dirt.

Like for months...all we've been hearing is how Harry is just dead to William and etc and etc but everyone is still shocked when Harry won't comeback when ordered? Just because people thinks he will.

Funny. It's funny.

Glad to see someone is smart enough to believe in the tabloids instead of news from reliable sources like BP or William himself.....LOL

Quote from: Curryong on April 07, 2023, 10:19:41 PM
How do we know that the Sussexes haven?t RSVP?d to the Coronation invitation? We do know that the couple and BP have been in regular communication since before the invitations were formally sent to anyone.

The only people who are saying that they haven?t replied is the Press, who are not likely to know unless BP tells them, there is no obligation on Harry and Meghan to rush and tell the media anything, after the way journalists have treated them for nearly four years. The media were full of stories about Harry and Meghan were not going to receive an invitation at all until the Sussexes told them they?d been e-mailed by people at BP. Before that the media obviously knew nothing.

Journalists are more than capable, because they?ve done it already on multiple occasions, of stating untruths about the couple ?spreading chaos?, ?not talking? to various royals or royals not talking to them, doing this, not doing that, when the stories are completely untrue and they know nothing or have completely made things up.

After the Sussexes spoke about the emails the Press then turned tack and there were dozens of stories about the couple imposing tons of conditions on their attendance. We ?know? that how? Oh yes, the tabloids told us! Nuff said!

I believe that the official invitations for all VIPs ie those who will require protection have been sent and a reply was required  by now so the Met Police can finalize their plans.

The number of Police officers and VIP protection officers would need to be determined well in advance of the event.  At this point in time,  I  do believe that the  Sussexes have not given their final answer.

^Plus they?ve already said they?re working on the assumption that they?ll be there precisely because they have not confirmed whether they will or will not attend.

But more to the point: why would they go? Harry claims all of the RF sell false stories about him to the media, don?t care whether he lives or dies, and made his wife suicidal. Why would you want to return to this so-called toxic environment? And for such a public event, why would you want to be in England? He says it?s dangerous for him and his family. Why bend over backwards to try and make an event based around an institution which apparently gleefully harms him at every turn?

You dont really need to ask, do you?

Well, I ask because I genuinely want to know the answer from their perspective. I already know what I think, so I?d like to hear another side to see if it matches their actions.

As I think through it, there are only three reasons why they would not announce their decision. 1) Because they are going and they don?t wanna be swarmed when they arrive because Harry thinks it?s dangerous. 2) Because they?re not going and they just wanna make it all about them in the meantime. Or 3) That list of demands that the press reported is true and they?re waiting on BP to confirm that these demands will be met.

I tend to lean toward option number 1. But if that is the answer, I genuinely wanna know how they would explain that from their perspective. Because from mine, it would make no sense why two people that say they were mentally and emotionally scarred by these individuals would wanna be anywhere near these people if in their own words, ?nothing has changed.?

I don?t want to assume I am always correct, so I would like to hear other opinions.

They need to go to emphasise their connextion to the RF.  If they did not go, their fans in the US might start to lose interest.
And in any case, goin by what Harry said back some weeks ago when promoting his book, you can't rely on anything he says.  One minute he will say that Camilla leaves bodies in the street, which is pretty extreme, then says that he gets on fairly well with her. 
Or that he did not say the family were racist because he ddi not use the word Racist.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on April 08, 2023, 11:15:13 AM
^Plus they?ve already said they?re working on the assumption that they?ll be there precisely because they have not confirmed whether they will or will not attend.

But more to the point: why would they go? Harry claims all of the RF sell false stories about him to the media, don?t care whether he lives or dies, and made his wife suicidal. Why would you want to return to this so-called toxic environment? And for such a public event, why would you want to be in England? He says it?s dangerous for him and his family. Why bend over backwards to try and make an event based around an institution which apparently gleefully harms him at every turn?

Yes I agree that the BRF/Earl Marshall aka Duke of Norfolk/Government and Met Police are just planning for them to be present. If one or both choose not to attend, then adjustments will be made.

Discussion of the excerpts of Robert Jobson's new book  can be found in the thread linked below. It's in the Modern Monarchies forum. /color]

Please note that the primary subject of Robson's book is King Charles III and not the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. For that reason, discussion of the book and its excerpts will take place in the thread linked below.

Books, TV programs and Films about Royals and Aristocrats (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95305.msg1519239#msg1519239)

People Magazine

''The coronation falls on Prince Archie's 4th birthday, and PEOPLE understands that the Duchess of Sussex will spend the weekend celebrating with him and his sister, 22-month-old Princess Lilibet.''

''Prince Harry, 38, wanted to be at the service to support his father at this important moment in his life, a friend tells PEOPLE.''

(He's done with the trashing?!)

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tig-meghan-521628323.jpg?w=small)

The Duchess of Sussex, 41, has now successfully been handed a trademark for the relaunch of her lifestyle website The Tig.

It's iconic logo features a handwritten Tig with a full stop at the end.

I love this choice.  Just getting my thoughts out and then I'll be off.

I would've wanted Meghan to come for a fashion moment but alas, it's whatever.

This is great on so many levels.

People can stop whining about Meghan keeping Harry from his family because it always has to be the woman. (And it just can't be the perfectly good BRF, who have never done anything wrong, ever)

He's flying in, attending the ceremony and flying out.

I'm glad Meghan is protecting her piece, no need to go and bow to the woman who still has denounced her good friend Jeremy or the man who claims to love his grandkids but kicks them out of there home and lie and say it's for the country and cost-saving. I mean, yes, now Meghan will be blamed for taking attention away because she didn't show up but she's in Cali.

Nothing for the family to leak about her (I was just waiting for a Meghan stole a tiara article), no pictures of her to sell the papers, no photos of the kids, nothing, 0, zilch for the British Media. I know half of the family are happy she's not coming, half might be upset they've lost a chance to give Meghan the cold shoulder and put her in her place.

And seeing the melt-down, it has been glorious and amazing.

Some people like to swear by Tom Bower, and according to him, Kate was the one to make sure Meghan wouldn't be around, and if she did come, she'd seat her in the back. Once again, Kate won't be dragged through the coals for making Charles coronation bout herself. (reserved for Meghan only) And once again, it's funny because Kate....if she was going to have the smoke for anyone, it should be Harry. (I'm sure Harry will stay away from her and we can stop the keening peace maker articles) But no, she turns her ire to Meghan and Meghan said she was a nice person and etc. I take from that, mean girl ways but I'm sure, she'll be defended to the ends of the earth and back but her public behavior even when her name wasn't mentioned, left a lot to be desired. I'd like Kate to realize, her going out of her way to snub Meghan, isn't as cool as she wants it to be and nothing has been done to her so as people say Meghan needs to get over making herself a victim, Kate needs to get over making herself a victim. And this forum has prompted Tom Brower as a source for being right, so surely, things wouldn't change if it's Kate being painted in a not so great light. (But people might rejoice in Kate putting Meghan at the back of the Church and even the optics for that...not great)

And two media reactions, I want to touch on.


1. The melt-down from the media....in general...after months and months and months of telling she isn't wanted and etc, they're not crying about how she isn't doing her royal duties and attending.

2. The Sun, running an article about Meghan not being there for Charles when Charles was there for her and I have to say lol, just lol, walking someone part-way down isle...does not mean, you're being there for them. Uhhhh, he's never said or done anything about the constant press abuse (we're talking beyond, the so called scrutiny...which wasn't really about anything they did...because at the time, Andrew was doing stuff with pedos and Charles getting bags of cash but no, Meghan's nail polish! It was just excuse for the press to abuse), he's never said or spoken against the violent attacks against Meghan, he leaks to his friends in the media about he wants to see his grandkids but has evicted them from their home, what was paid for and being up-kept to give it to his brother....just an overall failure of a fil, grandpa and etc. If the only point of reference people have has him being there for her is walking down an isle she walked mostly by herself....YIKES. Like...you have the former head of counter-terrorism talking about credible threats to Meghan's life, a rise in hate-crimes and white supremacy when she joined and to that you respond by taking away her home? That would tell me all I need to know about if you truly cared for me or my kids. (And well, holding this on Archie's bday, as if they couldn't find any other day and now, a picture of Archie can't even be released without someone screaming 'THEY'RE TRYING TO OVERSHADOW THE CORONATION' one would think, a loving grandpa would at least say, make it the 9th or something or speak out against his friend Robert Jobson when he implies Archie should be dangled over a balcony but nada.)

3. Why do people want to see Meghan get boo'd so hard? There saying she didn't want to face the boo's. Like....the last people event, there was exactly one British heckler but....another man just being out of breath and shocked that he got to see Meghan Markle in real life. At the Jubilee, there are conflicting reports about boo's but we do know she was cheered and the absolute boos were for Boris Johnson. Harry got calls of love at this Court Case and no boo's but William and Kate have been boo'd, Charles and Camilla KEEP getting boo'd and eggs chucked at them. Soooo.....it's just a very desperate attempt at people WANTING Meghan to get boo'd because it makes them happy I guess.

Overall, Harry is doing his duty to his father (who I don't think deserves but not my father.) This will be the last royal event for a while.

Meghan, is protecting her peace and not allowing herself to be served up as a media fodder and taking away the families chance at snubbing her and showing meaningless she is.

And not a good look for history that such a hostile environment, helped by the silence of the family has made it a security concern for the bi-racial woman and the bi-racial kids, as Charles is crowned King of The Commonwealth and/or head of state.

So, I hope to see Meghan at the MET GALA and if not that, I hope she attends her two awards ceremony so I can get some Meghan fashion moments.

It's been a pretty good day.

Paperboy worldwide headlines have the news as a relief rather than a meltdown. 

Also, the couple decided to not share their children with any of his/her extended family, only Doria.

I wouldn't be surprised if she caused some drama across the pond the 6th May.  BUT it would be too predictable.  I'm sure she knows she will never ever participate in any British royal event. This was it.

Interesting article from The Daily Beast, I?m glad that some outlets are pushing back against the narrative that Charles is super sad he didn?t get to see his grandkids.

King Charles ?Very Saddened? by Estrangement From Archie and Lilibet (https://www.thedailybeast.com/king-charles-very-saddened-by-estrangement-from-archie-and-lilibet)

Here?s the thing: if he didn?t care about seeing Archie and Lili, that?s fine with me. World goes round, it?s his side pushing this woeful grandpa image. If he cared, he wouldn?t have evicted them from their home in the UK. If he cared, he would created some symbolic role for Archie or at the very least, push back against the media as they gleefully wrote article after article about how he didn?t invite his own grands. And at the very least, he could?ve spoken up for either one when they were being bullied by his media friends.

Anything. So I wish his friends would stop briefing the media that he?s so sad he didn?t get to see them. He has a chance to visit and attend an important life event. He didn?t. He couldn?t found any other Saturday instead of taking attention away from his grandson. He didn?t.

Listen Charles, it?s okay not to care. Just stop trying to project the Image that you do.


Also sorry, if the format is weird, on mobile because my laptop is busted.

The couple that works 1 hour a week couldn't fly to the UK and have their daughter baptized in a COE. Meanwhile the workaholic King was about to but alas didn't fly to France, but Germany did happen.

:wink:

This sounds like something I referred to on another thread. A journalist taking liberty with an emotion that is likely true, but embellishing a story around it.

I?m not of the opinion that Charles is the root of all evil, so I?ll start there with my disclaimer regarding my opinion. Does he, like most any other grandfather that?s ever lived, love his grandchildren? Likely so. Does he miss not being able to see them as often as he does his other grandchildren? Likely so. Is he despondent over it and does he spend every waking hour thinking about all the reasons why he doesn?t get to see them? Unlikely.

This is the most important day of Charles? public life. He?s also not a complete idiot. I?m sure he knew it was unlikely they?d come. Do I think he?s sad that things have worked out the way they have? I?m sure. Sad enough to kowtow to the desires of two people that have spent months badmouthing his whole family? Seems not.

On 8 January 2020 Megxit, today Meghan's PR team is playing the victimhood mix with badmouthing = 3 years and 4 months ongoing. She (and Harry) are ''still'' using their old game, which fool me once...

I think it?s very simple and nothing that?s that dramatic. The family dynamics have irrevocably changed. For the better? For the worse? I?m not sure that either is fair to say. Harry said he wanted a family not an institution. Impossibly naive for someone that grew up a prince. The BRF can never be just a family unless they wish to join the ranks of the deposed. The family must always be both, something that should be obvious to someone who thinks it so important to announce that his children are a prince and princess.

They do not wish to abide by the customs. Totally fair. They now live in Cali, away from the institution. I think the family bit would have been possible had they decided to address these issues privately. A letter. A phone call. A meeting. I?m sure the argument would be, ?If we tried to do this in private, they?d leak it.? That?s fine. But the minute they went public with this stuff is the minute that the relationships changed forever.

They say they can?t trust the family. Well, the family cannot trust them. I don?t see this changing any time soon. Now, if Harry was actually being serious about wanting to mend things and it wasn?t some sort of PR ploy, then I?m quite sad for him because it?s impossible to unhear and unsee the things that have been out out for the whole world to know.

Of course, there?s always the possibility that it was only for the sake of selling the book that he said the whole thing about him wanting amends. Maybe he?s fine not being on close terms with his old family and he?s fine with just his new one. That?s why I say that it might be be for the better or for the worse. Impossible for me to say.

Also, leaking about Harry allegedly caring about seating plans.

But Ah yes; the palace doesn?t leak and etc. you?d think with them managing to push Meghan out and getting what they want for a day, they?d stop running to the tabloids but that?s unlikely I guess.

Come 6th May, I have a feeling Harry will not show up, just a feeling.  The couple will DO something, whatever to disrupt attention to themselves.

To late to edit, but my feeling of a no show is because I believe and have been confirmed by my fleet street friend that it is true that the ''seating'' of Harry is let's say ''off focus'' from the main characters.

Quote from: changemhysoul on April 14, 2023, 03:05:06 PM
Also, leaking about Harry allegedly caring about seating plans.

But Ah yes; the palace doesn?t leak and etc. you?d think with them managing to push Meghan out and getting what they want for a day, they?d stop running to the tabloids but that?s unlikely I guess.

How could it be possible for them to leak something if it?s supposedly not true? A leak implies that it is true and they?ve put it out there based on what Harry had said. Unless you?re saying Harry is making a stink out of his seating plans.

But yes, I?m sure that for Charles? big day, he wants all of the focus to be on Harry instead of himself. He?s spent all of his life waiting for this and all he can say is, ?Gee, I?m sure my staff spend their whole day on the phone with the Daily Mail talking about Harry and how he feels about where he?s sat.?

Harry wants to be part of the Coronation intrnal with the responsible people discussion, emails back and forth with his demands.  (All failed) He is making the mistake again of thinking He has to receive a sort of daily or weekly status of development, again means like what he publicly stated in documentation that He had to be 'part of the RAVEC meetings, development, decision.  Forgetting he isn't a working royal since the infamous Megxit, BP, CH and KP are not his staff, he is not their boss to toss around and 'demand. Much less embarassing himself 'demanding' the King, the Pow, their spouses via means of victimhood and badmouthing them.

Harry is doing these Coronation demands partly because he initiated it by publicly wanting an apology for his wife from the C, C, W, C then he switched it to 'they can apologize privately' then BP told the media last week or 1.5 weeks ago that the C, C, W, C will not apologize today, tomorrow and never because they haven't done anything wrong (on the contrary).

Harry's other partly has to do with and this is another whisper and rumor (whisper and rumor that Harry has found out, someone is telling him) ''William is really and truly very very very (tremendously busy is the sentence, and proof of W behind the scenes all over places) busy with Coronation, other POW works, other DOC works, his family''.  He is not 1 hour a week...and Harry is bored of his 1 hour a week life. Too much free time plus mentally ill plus drugs is hitting hard in Montecito.

I have to ADD that these drip by drip demands is a way to receive feedback (emails) from BP with polite and diplomatic no, then the demand seeker can reply back with ''why'', study of each sentence, break it down, play dum, ask why, thus getting more feedback...when you see it at the end, he's bored and has the delusion of still bein 'in' because he receives feedback, so it's a game of asking why for every feedback, it's quite maddening. I feel for the BRF. Another organization with a fired 3 years ago employee would send a warning, a harrasment proof to the police and a warrant to be white uniform tested.

IOW, you are a guest, received an invitation, your only job is to fly/sit down/fly back home rather than demand. I posted in the Coronation a guest who actually tweeted his invitation and a ''guide'', use that Harry, so IMO the above that I wrote in my words but being discussed in circles is true.

Like all the other 1,999 guests. Imagine if they were demanding.

I say ''guide'' because it has been LEAKED. As HistoryGirl said leak means true. And yes NO more 'coach for the guests' wink wink you can arrive in style!!!. Meaning Harry DID receive a guide, more specifically to him being the son of a King, surely his guide was altered to Charles paying his trip, Charles providing him with the range rover with Charles own RPO's...and on and on, Harry playing the Why here and there and everywhere, a gazillion why feedback.  :thumbsdown: Totally boring.

Quote from: changemhysoul on April 13, 2023, 01:04:36 PM
I love this choice.  Just getting my thoughts out and then I'll be off.

I would've wanted Meghan to come for a fashion moment but alas, it's whatever.

This is great on so many levels.

People can stop whining about Meghan keeping Harry from his family because it always has to be the woman. (And it just can't be the perfectly good BRF, who have never done anything wrong, ever)

He's flying in, attending the ceremony and flying out.

I'm glad Meghan is protecting her piece, no need to go and bow to the woman who still has denounced her good friend Jeremy or the man who claims to love his grandkids but kicks them out of there home and lie and say it's for the country and cost-saving. I mean, yes, now Meghan will be blamed for taking attention away because she didn't show up but she's in Cali.

Nothing for the family to leak about her (I was just waiting for a Meghan stole a tiara article), no pictures of her to sell the papers, no photos of the kids, nothing, 0, zilch for the British Media. I know half of the family are happy she's not coming, half might be upset they've lost a chance to give Meghan the cold shoulder and put her in her place.

And seeing the melt-down, it has been glorious and amazing.

Some people like to swear by Tom Bower, and according to him, Kate was the one to make sure Meghan wouldn't be around, and if she did come, she'd seat her in the back. Once again, Kate won't be dragged through the coals for making Charles coronation bout herself. (reserved for Meghan only) And once again, it's funny because Kate....if she was going to have the smoke for anyone, it should be Harry. (I'm sure Harry will stay away from her and we can stop the keening peace maker articles) But no, she turns her ire to Meghan and Meghan said she was a nice person and etc. I take from that, mean girl ways but I'm sure, she'll be defended to the ends of the earth and back but her public behavior even when her name wasn't mentioned, left a lot to be desired. I'd like Kate to realize, her going out of her way to snub Meghan, isn't as cool as she wants it to be and nothing has been done to her so as people say Meghan needs to get over making herself a victim, Kate needs to get over making herself a victim. And this forum has prompted Tom Brower as a source for being right, so surely, things wouldn't change if it's Kate being painted in a not so great light. (But people might rejoice in Kate putting Meghan at the back of the Church and even the optics for that...not great)

And two media reactions, I want to touch on.


1. The melt-down from the media....in general...after months and months and months of telling she isn't wanted and etc, they're not crying about how she isn't doing her royal duties and attending.

2. The Sun, running an article about Meghan not being there for Charles when Charles was there for her and I have to say lol, just lol, walking someone part-way down isle...does not mean, you're being there for them. Uhhhh, he's never said or done anything about the constant press abuse (we're talking beyond, the so called scrutiny...which wasn't really about anything they did...because at the time, Andrew was doing stuff with pedos and Charles getting bags of cash but no, Meghan's nail polish! It was just excuse for the press to abuse), he's never said or spoken against the violent attacks against Meghan, he leaks to his friends in the media about he wants to see his grandkids but has evicted them from their home, what was paid for and being up-kept to give it to his brother....just an overall failure of a fil, grandpa and etc. If the only point of reference people have has him being there for her is walking down an isle she walked mostly by herself....YIKES. Like...you have the former head of counter-terrorism talking about credible threats to Meghan's life, a rise in hate-crimes and white supremacy when she joined and to that you respond by taking away her home? That would tell me all I need to know about if you truly cared for me or my kids. (And well, holding this on Archie's bday, as if they couldn't find any other day and now, a picture of Archie can't even be released without someone screaming 'THEY'RE TRYING TO OVERSHADOW THE CORONATION' one would think, a loving grandpa would at least say, make it the 9th or something or speak out against his friend Robert Jobson when he implies Archie should be dangled over a balcony but nada.)

3. Why do people want to see Meghan get boo'd so hard? There saying she didn't want to face the boo's. Like....the last people event, there was exactly one British heckler but....another man just being out of breath and shocked that he got to see Meghan Markle in real life. At the Jubilee, there are conflicting reports about boo's but we do know she was cheered and the absolute boos were for Boris Johnson. Harry got calls of love at this Court Case and no boo's but William and Kate have been boo'd, Charles and Camilla KEEP getting boo'd and eggs chucked at them. Soooo.....it's just a very desperate attempt at people WANTING Meghan to get boo'd because it makes them happy I guess.

Overall, Harry is doing his duty to his father (who I don't think deserves but not my father.) This will be the last royal event for a while.

Meghan, is protecting her peace and not allowing herself to be served up as a media fodder and taking away the families chance at snubbing her and showing meaningless she is.

And not a good look for history that such a hostile environment, helped by the silence of the family has made it a security concern for the bi-racial woman and the bi-racial kids, as Charles is crowned King of The Commonwealth and/or head of state.

So, I hope to see Meghan at the MET GALA and if not that, I hope she attends her two awards ceremony so I can get some Meghan fashion moments.

It's been a pretty good day.

What home were the Sussex;s kicked out of....Frogmore....NO kids where ever kicked out of their home, that is a bold face LIE.  The home of the Sussex;s is in California, not Windsor England.  Frogmore was a rental which they knew ahead of time that their time was up.  Please get your facts in order as that makes the people look bad  who comment.  I am tried of all the Lies that the Sussex's have told over the last 3 years, I have a long list of them here from my sister  that I have saved.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on April 14, 2023, 04:15:56 PM
How could it be possible for them to leak something if it?s supposedly not true? A leak implies that it is true and they?ve put it out there based on what Harry had said. Unless you?re saying Harry is making a stink out of his seating plans.

But yes, I?m sure that for Charles? big day, he wants all of the focus to be on Harry instead of himself. He?s spent all of his life waiting for this and all he can say is, ?Gee, I?m sure my staff spend their whole day on the phone with the Daily Mail talking about Harry and how he feels about where he?s sat.?

Regarding Prince Harry and seating plans, I tend to believe based upon recent history is that he is very conscious of where he (and Meghan) are placed at large royal gatherings.

First moment in recent history occurred  in 2020 at the Commonwealth Service, the Sussexes who had announced that they were stepping back from senior royal duties were not included in the Procession into the Abbey with the Queen and the senior royals. The programs had been printed and the Sussexes were not included as being a part of the group. The couple made their displeasure known and  in an effort to smooth things over, the Cambridges did not join in the procession even though they were included in the printed program.

The second episode took place at the Jubilee Service at St. Paul's Cathedral, where it's quite clear that Prince Harry is surprised to see that he and Meghan will not be seated on the aisle but rather to the side of his York cousins and their husbands.

So yes based upon recent history and the Sussexes' actions,  I am inclined to believe that Prince Harry is very conscious of where he is to be seated at the upcoming Coronation service.

^Good assumption based on prior knowledge. That?s what I find amazing. Some of these are just very good guesses from journalists based on information they know to be true. It? becomes common sense; no need for anyone at the palace to leak it or confirm it.

And his confusion at where he is being seated is mind-boggling. He?s either the most oblivious person or the most conceited. But maybe it?s a symptom of a larger problem. I think he may finally be grasping that everything has now changed, just not the way he wanted them to. It?s difficult for me to see a time where he?ll ever be front and center as an important public member of the family again. The main focus is now the King, his wife, and William and his family. There?s not going to be any change in that moving forward.

I think his fear of being relegated to the periphery in terms of importance has become true. But it became kind of a self fulfilling prophecy because he helped it along. I think Charles would have been quite happy seeing both of his sons? families as public members of the family, but they wanted other things. Choices have consequences. I initially assumed he understood those consequences, but I guess he didn?t.

Quote from: changemhysoul on April 14, 2023, 01:29:40 PM
Interesting article from The Daily Beast, I?m glad that some outlets are pushing back against the narrative that Charles is super sad he didn?t get to see his grandkids.

King Charles ?Very Saddened? by Estrangement From Archie and Lilibet (https://www.thedailybeast.com/king-charles-very-saddened-by-estrangement-from-archie-and-lilibet)

Here?s the thing: if he didn?t care about seeing Archie and Lili, that?s fine with me. World goes round, it?s his side pushing this woeful grandpa image. If he cared, he wouldn?t have evicted them from their home in the UK. If he cared, he would created some symbolic role for Archie or at the very least, push back against the media as they gleefully wrote article after article about how he didn?t invite his own grands. And at the very least, he could?ve spoken up for either one when they were being bullied by his media friends.

Anything. So I wish his friends would stop briefing the media that he?s so sad he didn?t get to see them. He has a chance to visit and attend an important life event. He didn?t. He couldn?t found any other Saturday instead of taking attention away from his grandson. He didn?t.

Listen Charles, it?s okay not to care. Just stop trying to project the Image that you do.


Also sorry, if the format is weird, on mobile because my laptop is busted.

No worries about the format @changemhysoul and hopefully your laptop can be repaired.

I have to admit that after reading this article from The Daily Beast, the author seems to have little understanding of the monarch's role, duties and schedule. This is the Head of State who has a calendar that is scheduled years in advance for some events. The monarch like most other HoS or Head of Government is never truly "off duty." Their work continues all year round even if it involves scheduling a few hours for  the daily reading of bulletins and correspondence.

As for the ending of the lease on Frogmore Cottage, it made little sense for a residence to be largely empty except for a week or two at most. KCIII needs to ensure that the properties on the Windsor Estate are maintained and leaving a residence vacant for long periods of time, doesn't bode well.  There are certainly other accommodations that could be made available for London/Windsor area visits including  that large castle that is very close to FC.


The author seems to have not even researched previous coronations if they're suggesting that four year old Prince Archie could have a "symbolic role." The author doesn't even suggest what that could be because I expect that they didn't attempt to find out what occurs during the service. To be honest it would be cruel to expect a very sheltered four year old who has never set foot in Westminster Abbey to participate without in any role to do so with over a thousand guests who are strangers to him.  Even his cousins Princess Charlotte who will be eight by the coronation and younger brother Prince Louis who will be five who have been to the various royal events in their lifetimes, will not have any role in the service. All the pages of honor  who are participating in the service, are older than eight and most are pre-teens or early teens.   

I disagree, the overall point.

Those things Charles COULD do if he truly desired. He is not only Monarch. He?s a man that has done what HE wants despite the rules. It?s been shown in many cases, one of the most notable, his wife.

Which is fine, the Monarch can make rules and change things as they go. And the point of the article is correct. You cant go on a ?I love my grandkids and miss them campaign.? When you?ve done all of that. It?s pointless. Stop using them to curate the image of a warm grandpa. If you were unable to say anything in support of them when they?re being attacked, then don?t use them for puff pieces.

And thank you for the words about the laptop.

And The Sun, with another article private information.

?.and we?re still suppose to believe that they (the palace) don?t invade the privacy.

I do love when they prove Harry?s point.

Quote from: changemhysoul on April 16, 2023, 12:02:52 PM
I disagree, the overall point.

Those things Charles COULD do if he truly desired. He is not only Monarch. He?s a man that has done what HE wants despite the rules. It?s been shown in many cases, one of the most notable, his wife.

Which is fine, the Monarch can make rules and change things as they go. And the point of the article is correct. You cant go on a ?I love my grandkids and miss them campaign.? When you?ve done all of that. It?s pointless. Stop using them to curate the image of a warm grandpa. If you were unable to say anything in support of them when they?re being attacked, then don?t use them for puff pieces.

And thank you for the words about the laptop.

And The Sun, with another article private information.

?.and we?re still suppose to believe that they (the palace) don?t invade the privacy.

I do love when they prove Harry?s point.

Like Harry keep saying he loves his brother and father then insulting them? That kind of pointless :laugh10: :laugh10:

@changemhysoul -We will just have to agree to disagree.  :truce: 

IMHO Sussexes have far less responsibility and far more flexibility in their schedules and roles than Britain's Head of State.  I believe that it  is easier for them to travel to the UK on private business than it would be for KCIII to go to California on a personal visit.

Believing everything printed in the media is a little disturbing. Here is a journalist claiming that Kate would make sure Meghan was humiliated if she went?how exactly would she do that? Kate wouldn?t be responsible for the boos that she hears. The reason she?s not being raked over the coals for making Charles? coronation about herself is because no one believes that statement to be even be logical much less true.

Harry and Meghan decided that he would attend and she wouldn?t. I don?t think Kate featured in their decision in the least. And while we have zero proof in terms of actions (not just listening to what media say) that she intimidated Meghan into not coming, we do have proof that Harry and Meghan waited until the last minute to make their decision, past the RSVP date. Actions count more to me than what Tom Bower says Kate did or will do. That?s why they get raked over the coals; because of their own actions.

The truth is that Spare did nothing in the way of making them seem more likable for the majority of people. Another PR tactic has to be incorporated moving forward because this one is not a winning one. I think they believed that the entire world would cast aspersions onto the RF after they saw how supposedly terribly and awfully they?ve been treated and that just didn?t happen. They?re now even less popular in the UK than they were before. I think that factored into the decision more than Kate?s supposed comportment.

No love lost is the only thing Bower should have said, it would stay in line with his per usual knowledge and backup sources! 

He went overboard emotional according to Lady C because he allegedly knows about how really nasty M was with C since the word Go.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on April 16, 2023, 12:53:29 PM
Believing everything printed in the media is a little disturbing. Here is a journalist claiming that Kate would make sure Meghan was humiliated if she went?how exactly would she do that? Kate wouldn?t be responsible for the boos that she hears. The reason she?s not being raked over the coals for making Charles? coronation about herself is because no one believes that statement to be even be logical much less true.

Harry and Meghan decided that he would attend and she wouldn?t. I don?t think Kate featured in their decision in the least. And while we have zero proof in terms of actions (not just listening to what media say) that she intimidated Meghan into not coming, we do have proof that Harry and Meghan waited until the last minute to make their decision, past the RSVP date. Actions count more to me than what Tom Bower says Kate did or will do. That?s why they get raked over the coals; because of their own actions.

The truth is that Spare did nothing in the way of making them seem more likable for the majority of people. Another PR tactic has to be incorporated moving forward because this one is not a winning one. I think they believed that the entire world would cast aspersions onto the RF after they saw how supposedly terribly and awfully they?ve been treated and that just didn?t happen. They?re now even less popular in the UK than they were before. I think that factored into the decision more than Kate?s supposed comportment.

Yes I found Bower's claims about the Westminster Abbey seating arrangements to be very strange. The Duke of Norfolk and his team would be the ones in charge of drawing up the proposed seating arrangement. I believe the only seating arrangements that Catherine might be concerned about are for her own children.

^They wouldn't be trapped IF they came up with a brand new business plan workable for their long term future tied to their 'lifestyle'. 

Or

they wouldn't be trapped IF they changed their lifestyle to be (really) frugal.

But with the 1 hour a week dedication.

A number of  bickering  and speculative posts have been removed.  A reminder that if  members have concerns that they should use the report button to bring it to our attention. Thank you.