Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

ShagNastii

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Harry won’t win sympathy with his antics this year, showing a lack of maturity.

Victimhood is very much in fashion, but you’d really wonder what he is getting out of all this sh*te flinging?

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well there’s an audience for British royal family bashing, and look I’m not saying that as an institution its perfect or even relevant, but being Irish I’ve no say in how another country conducts their business in regard to monarchy.

From what I can gather there’s a fondness for the current monarch Queen Elizabeth and if not as high a liking for the rest, there’s not a overall hatred of them. Now, I could be wrong but that’s my take based on how the British public reacted after the Oprah interview over the timing and after Prince Philip died.

The one thing I do find that’s getting annoying is the narrative that Harry is spinning that only he went through a **** time after his mother died. I mean his brother might have been older but losing your mother that young must be awful regardless of age. William seems to have if not forgotten(not like you ever could) but he’s tried to get on with his life.

A wise person once said that you’d never get far if you’re constantly looking over your shoulder and when you point a finger at anyone, there are 3 fingers pointing right back at you.

Deeec

[/QUOTE]The one thing I do find that’s getting annoying is the narrative that Harry is spinning that only he went through a **** time after his mother died. I mean his brother might have been older but losing your mother that young must be awful regardless of age. William seems to have if not forgotten(not like you ever could) but he’s tried to get on with his life.[/QUOTE]

I think William did suffer too but he rightly keeps his grief/issues private and knows there is nothing to be achieved by making it public. He probably knows aswell that his father done his best in a very difficult set of circumstances.

Ms. Newbie18

Its arguable as to who out of the brothers was my affected by Diana's death. Losing a parent so young marks you in many ways and everyone deals with things differently, of course. I was always of the opinion that it would have changed Wills more. After all he was far more aware of what was happening with his parents and his mother in the lead up to her death. Not just because his is older but because you can tell as adults who is far more clued into what is going on not only around him but in the world at large.

Seeing the way Harry behaved in his teens and early 20s - leads me to believe he was pandered to by his family because the trauma brought on by his mothers death. The palace PR painted him as happy go lucky but they could never fully rid him of his innate spoiled entitled ways.

He is not the only person in the world to lose a parent in a tragic way, and yes I know no one else had to do it on such a global scale. Though what I would have taken from the outpouring from all over the world, as I got older (I understand him thinking as a child why do so and so have the right to cry etc for my mother), is that my mother was incredibly loved. He has benefited from that love the public held for his mother. It was why the BP were always so quick to forgive and write off his bad press.

Ms. Newbie18

Here we go again:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9627905/Prince-Harry-speaks-dealt-Meghan-feeling-suicidal.html

Part two of the apple series

dogbert27

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Here we go again:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9627905/Prince-Harry-speaks-dealt-Meghan-feeling-suicidal.html

Part two of the apple series

Oprah is the real winner in all of this. $$$$

Ms. Newbie18

dogbert27 wrote: »

Oprah is the real winner in all of this. $$$$

That she is. It only a matter of time before a true investigative journalists looks into the setting up of all this. How long was it truly in the works.

"The Times reported that Oprah “found herself in London” at the time and was invited by Meghan to meet her at Kensington Palace in March 2018"


Oprah does not just randomly decide to take herself off to London. Her schedule would not allow it. If she was there and holiday she would have said..

This has been in the works from that 1st trip MM took to meet Harry.

Oprah had never heard nor cared about MM before

lrushe

Deeec wrote: »

The one thing I do find that’s getting annoying is the narrative that Harry is spinning that only he went through a **** time after his mother died. I mean his brother might have been older but losing your mother that young must be awful regardless of age. William seems to have if not forgotten(not like you ever could) but he’s tried to get on with his life.[/QUOTE]

I think William did suffer too but he rightly keeps his grief/issues private and knows there is nothing to be achieved by making it public. He probably knows aswell that his father done his best in a very difficult set of circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Could also be that William is less likely to bite the hand that feeds him, the monarchy is not only his meal ticket but his descendants aswell.

BrokenWingz

lrushe wrote: »

Could also be that William is less likely to bite the hand that feeds him, the monarchy is not only his meal ticket but his descendants aswell.

Harry only started lashing out and attacking his family when his / Meghan's desire for a royal life in addition to being allowed their vanity projects was denied.

HildaOgdenx

I think the more Harry says, the more sympathy will go towards the family, especially in the U.K.

The Americans will surely tire, at some point, of listening to him also.

valoren

If Meghan was the one who was suicidal and quietly sobbing into her pillow then it beggars the question why is it Harry who is going through the high profile intensive therapy? What help has she gotten? She convinced him that when he once got angry during an argument that he was the one who needed help. The guy is so utterly manipulated and he can't (or worse, won't) see it. If their relationship takes a tumble then Harry's already been public about drug/alcohol problems, post-traumatic stress and anger management problems. Guess who will be playing the victim if their marriage breaks down? I wonder who will be getting the blame? No doubt she'll be the one, in line for a big pay day, who will be positioned as the one trying to protect her kids from the messed up abusive drug addict she married and tried her best to save. Cluster B Histrionic people like Meghan prey on people with emotional issues. Harry, a sheltered Royal with no real life experience, was gullible and it's amazing how quickly Meghan manipulated him. Give it a few years and she’ll be on Oprah's couch again for another bout of "What?!?".

Neyite

That's the real worry - he'll get absolutely screwed over in a divorce with the children, given his instability and by his own admission, dysfunctional family. That would seriously go against him in any custody dispute.

I dunno would I be brave enough to be willing to take on the RF in a custody dispute. I'd be worried that MI5 would come after me! :eek:

Leg End Reject

He's hit the self-destruct button big time, I wonder how he'll look back on it all in a few years?

valoren

Neyite wrote: »

That's the real worry - he'll get absolutely screwed over in a divorce with the children, given his instability and by his own admission, dysfunctional family. That would seriously go against him in any custody dispute.

I dunno would I be brave enough to be willing to take on the RF in a custody dispute. I'd be worried that MI5 would come after me! :eek:

Isn't there protocol involved with custody of the Monarch's heirs? That the monarch is the ultimate custodian? I'm sure it would make lucrative fodder in a Mom trying to rescue her kids from the grips of the archaic and evil Empire narrative. It would be one way to retain relevance and prey on people's sympathies.

Be right back

valoren wrote: »

Isn't there protocol involved with custody of the Monarch's heirs? That the monarch is the ultimate custodian? I'm sure it would make lucrative fodder in a Mom trying to rescue her kids from the grips of the archaic and evil Empire. It would be one way to retain relevance and prey on people's sympathies.

Would it make a difference when they were married in the UK and Archie was born there?

retro:electro

They’ve played their hand and it’s getting very tiresome now, this constant drip feeding of his problems and dumping them so publicly. There are literally billions of people who would wish they could swap their problems for his. He needs to grow up

Tilden Katz

HildaOgdenx wrote: »

I think the more Harry says, the more sympathy will go towards the family, especially in the U.K.

The Americans will surely tire, at some point, of listening to him also.

And I wonder how big a story this even is in the US. It's such a vast and varied nation. I think it will always be a bigger story in the UK.

dogbert27

Be right back wrote: »

Would it make a difference when they were married in the UK and Archie was born there?

I was just going to say, she would have to file for divorce in the UK and go through the UK courts for custody.

Itssoeasy

valoren wrote: »

Isn't there protocol involved with custody of the Monarch's heirs? That the monarch is the ultimate custodian? I'm sure it would make lucrative fodder in a Mom trying to rescue her kids from the grips of the archaic and evil Empire. It would be one way to retain relevance and prey on people's sympathies.

There’s something about the monarch being the guardian of all the descendants alright but someone who knows better might know the finer points of it. Something I only found out is that then former prime minister John major(labour had just won the 1997 election) became a guardian of William and Harry when their mother died which I suppose was a safety step but found it interesting. I say that because I doubt Meghan will know the finer points should there be a divorce. Archie and sister may not have titles now but they will be grandchildren of a monarch in the not too distant future so it’ll be a different ball game.

JoChervil

retro:electro wrote: »

They’ve played their hand and it’s getting very tiresome now, this constant drip feeding of his problems and dumping them so publicly. There are literally billions of people who would wish they could swap their problems for his. He needs to grow up

And how much he is jeopardising his main project Invictus Games? How will he be able to look at participants faces, who experienced much more difficult problems? And where is the dignity in it all?

Itssoeasy

So in light of my last post I went and looked and I can’t find anything anti the monarch being guardian but there is a regency act from 1937 and if something happens in the next ten years that means Prince George ascends to the throne before he turns 18 in 2031, then Harry is in line to be the acting regent(must be living in the UK though) and if Harry is still living out foreign, then it goes to Prince Andrew and if not him, then princess Beatrice. It’s a very interesting situation.

Sardonicat

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So in light of my last post I went and looked and I can’t find anything anti the monarch being guardian but there is a regency act from 1937 and if something happens in the next ten years that means Prince George ascends to the throne before he turns 18 in 2031, then Harry is in line to be the acting regent(must be living in the UK though) and if Harry is still living out foreign, then it goes to Prince Andrew and if not him, then princess Beatrice. It’s a very interesting situation.

I thought his role as official 'spare' wasn't finished til George turned 18, alright. Interesting that Beatrice would come before Edward or Anne as Regent, though. Very convoluted system, altogether. Unlikely to come to that, but stranger things have happened.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

I thought his role as official 'spare' wasn't finished til George turned 18, alright. Interesting that Beatrice would come before Edward or Anne as Regent, though. Very convoluted system, altogether. Unlikely to come to that, but stranger things have happened.

Line of succession here. https://www.royal.uk/succession

The line of Succession

SOVEREIGN

1. The Prince of Wales
2. The Duke of Cambridge
3. Prince George of Cambridge
4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
5. Prince Louis of Cambridge
6. The Duke of Sussex
7. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
8. The Duke of York
9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
10. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank
11. Master August Brooksbank
12. The Earl of Wessex
13. Viscount Severn
14. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
15. The Princess Royal
16. Mr. Peter Phillips
17. Miss Savannah Phillips
18. Miss Isla Phillips
19. Mrs. Michael Tindall
20. Miss Mia Tindall
21. Miss Lena Tindall
22. Master Lucas Tindall

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

Line of succession here. https://www.royal.uk/succession

The line of Succession

SOVEREIGN

1. The Prince of Wales
2. The Duke of Cambridge
3. Prince George of Cambridge
4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
5. Prince Louis of Cambridge
6. The Duke of Sussex
7. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
8. The Duke of York
9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
10. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank
11. Master August Brooksbank
12. The Earl of Wessex
13. Viscount Severn
14. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
15. The Princess Royal
16. Mr. Peter Phillips
17. Miss Savannah Phillips
18. Miss Isla Phillips
19. Mrs. Michael Tindall
20. Miss Mia Tindall
21. Miss Lena Tindall
22. Master Lucas Tindall

Ah when you see it listed it makes a bit more sense. Is Zara Phillips after losing her spot in the line or is it a mistake ? Shouldn’t she be 17th after he brother but before her kids and nieces ?

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Ah when you see it listed it makes a bit more sense. Is Zara Phillips after losing her spot in the line or is it a mistake ? Shouldn’t she be 17th after he brother but before her kids and nieces ?

Her brothers kids come before Zara.

Addle

Sad at all that have priority over Princess Anne.

Ms. Newbie18

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So in light of my last post I went and looked and I can’t find anything anti the monarch being guardian but there is a regency act from 1937 and if something happens in the next ten years that means Prince George ascends to the throne before he turns 18 in 2031, then Harry is in line to be the acting regent(must be living in the UK though) and if Harry is still living out foreign, then it goes to Prince Andrew and if not him, then princess Beatrice. It’s a very interesting situation.

I had always believed if something happened to Will and Geroge had be crowned then Kate would be regent. I'm not sure where my thinking came from. Must have seen it in afilm.

Itssoeasy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Her brothers kids come before Zara.

Yeah but she’s not on the list at all. Unless I need to go to an optician her name isn’t there and it should be before her kids then.

Sardonicat

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah but she’s not on the list at all. Unless I need to go to an optician her name isn’t there and it should be before her kids then.

Mrs. Michael Tindall.

retro:electro

Addle wrote: »

Sad at all that have priority over Princess Anne.

My fav Royal! She would have made a stellar Queen