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

They always needed the prominence of being top-tier royals as their selling point for their plan to work.

The problem was that neither of them checked that they would be allowed to publicly monetise their titles in the way that they wanted first. Royals cash in plenty (see Andrew, Charles, Sophie) but it's all very discreet and supposed to kept very quiet because they can't be seen to be wheeling and dealing. That's terribly uncouth dear.

So that was strike number 1. The second was not being able to strike while the iron was hot and launch on US red carpets and clinch their A++ connections before those connections realised they were out of the family circle - covid was responsible for that.

Strike number 3 I think was the Oprah interview. Explosive TV, which is what they wanted, but while their lies and half-truths and recollections were subsequently uncovered, anyone in the public eye knows that the first side of the story that comes out sticks and endures so the damage is done. The likes of Obama and Clooney that H&M want so badly to rub shoulders with, spotted the inconsistencies at the same time we all did. And also would have made note of the couple's willingness to dish even family dirt. I feel that this interview really backfired on the couple for those reasons.

I would like to see them succeed as a happy couple but their years together certainly have been turbulent enough for most couples, let alone ones in the public eye like this. All those lawsuits and books raking up stuff has to be miserably stressful. But if they do divorce, Harry would go back into the family business and they'll sort out his image with some charity sector that's been overlooked, like Di and the landmines or Aids campaigns. Meghan will demand, and get, a massive amount of cash out of the family, but there'll be a watertight gagging order attached. It's even possible that depending on what stuff she does know that's not in the public domain, it could be a matter of national security if it's got the potential to destabilise the monarchy, particularly one with an imminent changeover.

Like you, I'm just guessing here, but if he was brought back, they'd have to give him something to do, as there's lots of critisism about extended layabout royals who leech off the lifestyle and don't work - that's where Charles slimming down the monarchy is coming from. Those that are in the public eye have to be seen to be paying their way. Harry no matter what titles might come and go, is still going to be the son of the King of Great Britain, and a prince. What I suspect would suit him a hell of a lot better if he did return, would be to be right out of the public eye, say, in the style of his uncle Lord Spencer, turning up at Ascot or similar and then retreating back into obscurity again, if the press would let him.

If Harry has no money for a potential divorce settlement, then Charles will have to step in. She'll the ex daughter in law of a King, mother to his grandchildren. No matter what, it's not a good look for a man with almost incalculable wealth and international standing if she went crying on Ellen that she's got no food in her fridge to feed her kids. So the best way for all involved would be for her to name her price and for them to name their terms.

They may not know much - but then in families especially big ones, are things ever really hidden? But even that little they do know - like for example if there's even slightly more that the royals (and in particular Charles and William know about Andrew/Epstein that hasn't come out - and that got plopped out in the first few years of Charles's reign, it could send shockwaves though the monarchy.

Diana was just a kid really when she got engaged to him. And she probably had no clue at the time that it was pretty standard to marry advantageously, pop out a few heirs and then you were free to discreetly do your own thing on the side. The trouble was that she was not content with the social norm of her circle. And it seems like she was also a hopeless romantic so might have initially bought into the Disney princess narrative of marrying a prince after a brief few meetings and they would live happily ever after. And I think she was very naive. She was troubled with mental health issues, probably exacerbated by royal life constraints and a shítty marriage, and could be quite manipulative tipping off the press as she got older, knowing that they'd scramble to wherever she was to photograph her.

To be fair, she also used that to bring international attention to important causes and shine a spotlight on issues, but she knew her power when it came to the media - her last summer was indicative of that. It's a common theory that Fayed was basically a summer fling in an attempt to make her recent ex, Kahn, jealous and she drew the media attention to them deliberately in France that summer for that reason and the tabloids were going nuts that summer. The fact that she was still only 36, could still easily have more kids + muslim boyfriend didn't sit well with the establishment and she knew that. Some tabloids were reporting pregnancy & engagement rumours that summer and I'd say she was sitting on that yacht laughing her arse off at the idea of all these racist white toffs being horrified at the idea of half siblings to their King being mixed race and a different religion.

She was manipulative and shrewd but there also was a kindness and empathy in her that people saw as genuine too. And she had immense charm according to anyone who she spoke with. Meghan may have the media shrewdness and manipulative traits of her mother in law but she crucially doesn't have the other traits that redeemed Diana.