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

Nope, the Canadians didn't withdraw security. That was all Charles and William's doing with the hope that they would scare Harry back to the UK to be William's scapegoat and Meghan would disappear with Charles' grandchildren with the tainted blood to hide her children in Canada or the US.

Charles & William's little plan didn't work out for them though.

The Canadians did withdraw security. Charles or William don't tell any government what to do. They were getting security in Canada intermittently as IPP's since late 2019 as they were humming and hawing about what they wanted to do and they got it until the end of March 2020 when they were to officially step down. As was agreed by them by the way. Or whatever spin Harry subsequently put on it (Printers not working during Sandringham Summit, waagh, waagh, waagh etc.). A public opinion poll at the time said 73% of Canadians had no interest in paying for their ongoing security costs. Using your logic this means that 73% of Canadians also wanted Meghan dead. Just like William and Charles according to you. They had a known cut off point and as mentioned he was a multimillionaire and an ex-military man who presumably had the capacity to prepare and plan particularly for something that was inevitable i.e. arrange security in the US, somewhere to live etc. because the security will be stopped since you don't get to keep the perks of a job you've decided to no longer do.

They're either fantasists living their own truths and posting them here or bare faced liars being contrarian for the sake of it.

We may never know. 🤔

Charles and William probably paid off that 73% to make sure the poll results matched what their media friends wanted obviously.

The detachment from reality is hilarious. People genuinely think Harry could quit and keep (if not actually get extra) all the perks of working. Madness.

Thats nonsense about being a working royals. Back then there would have been no question of them not working. It was a wedding gift from QEII. If you had to be a working royal to avail of Crown accommodation, most of the extended royal family would be evicted (including the York girls from Kensington Palace and their father from his estate). Will Anne be evicted from her house (a gift from the Queen on her first marriage) if she stops being a working royal? Will Zara, Peter Phillips and Mark Phillips also be kicked out?)

What do you think of Charles kicking Angela Kelly out (who had been gifted the use of a house on the Windsor Estate for her lifetime by the Queen).

Remind me again who the billionaire Monarch was when all of this happened? Who was the one who said no to half in/half out? Doesn't suit their victim narrative to level any blame on or have a go at the boss at the time, the Queen.

Take a look at RAVEC's terms of reference. The Committee is made up of Queen/King (in respect of Royalty), The Home Secretary, Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and relevant Chief Constables.

The Commissioner of the Met said there was a real threat to their lives (and there is someone in prison for it). https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-and-meghan-faced-credible-threats-by-far-right-extremists-says-met-polices-ex-counterterror-chief-neil-basu-12758496

I hope you have a pension for the years you were working. Did you get a lump sum when you retired or were you just thrown to the wolves with nothing?

You have no idea what Meghan is doing because she keeps a low profile, but yet people cannot stop talking about her. Last year she did her podcast and earned $18m. Perhaps she is working on another series?

As for the British Press - seemingly there were 40 articles in the Daily Mail in one day last week about Meghan not going to the Coronation. I find it a bit more than just hypocritical. Its hate mongering. The week before they had hundreds of articles about why she shouldn't be invited to the coronation.

The Queen gave her blessing and all ok for Camilla to be called Queen Consort. Harry did say he wanted to make sure the Queen was surrounded by the right people. He could magically do this from thousands of miles away of course. I remember reading somewhere that (allegedly) Charles, getting older and presumably wanting to appease his children, was open to the half in/out proposals with conditions attached (remaining neutral, no hocking HRH branding etc.) but it was the Queen who put the foot down about what service meant i.e. you're either completely in or completely out. You've got a year to suss things out. Then you have to decide.

If the Queen could release millions for Andrew to pay off Virginia Giuffre then what was stopping her stumping up an extra few million for a beloved grandson and his young family who were in the height of danger until they could be financially independent? Must have wanted Meghan dead as well I suppose. Or else she knew her grandson was a multimillionaire and...well I'm repeating myself at this point.

The Queen devoted her adult life to service. The idea of abdication would have been abhorrent to her. Edward VIII abdicated and certainly the Queen Mother thought that this contributed to the early death of George VI. And so did the Queen. You are trying to re-write history to suit your narrative. Perhaps, it's, "Your truth". Let's get back to the truth, can we?

The Queen may have been old but she didn't loose the run of herself and she would have been completely able to be, and indeed, in the driving seat when key strategic policy decisions were taken. Remember it was she who said, "no half in, half out".

Yes those people you mentioned would be kicked out if they became a security threat by secretly photographing, recording, and releasing a book detailing the floor plans of private residences. Having a drug using, openly vengeful man living in close proximity to the next King and his children would be unacceptable. Harry lost the lease because of his own actions. He’s rich, he can buy his own house now.

If you read back through this thread you will find out why so many of us here dislike H&M. In a lot of cases (for me anyway I dont read the tabloids) its nothing to do with the British tabloids or Dan Wooton or the Daily Mail, its down to H&M themselves.

In short, much of what Meghan said in the Oprah interview was proven incorrect, didnt make sense or was presented in a way to damage the royal family without placing the blame (for something quite possibly willfully taken out of context) on any specific person. Meghan there especially showed herself to be at best a very untrustworthy narrator. I dont think any of us care that she spoke against the RF, its that much of what she said was bullsh!t. This has only been confirmed with many other incidents that have emerged since.

As for Harry....he is almost as bad. He was on an interview recently and insisted that Meghan never said the RF were racist. She might not have uttered the words specifically, but her very strong implication that her kids didnt get titles at the time because of racism or that some "senior member" of the RF asked about what skintone her kids might be and that was racist. There are way more examples. The treatment of them by the British tabloids etc though is a separate issue to me at least.

I wonder how “big” this will become.

There are certainly a lot of disinterested people in the UK if a recent poll is to be believed, relating to interest in the coronation- the crowds that are there will be mainly royal family fans obviously so wearing a yellow shirt won’t go down well with those large crowds

Yep, hence the cries for many years now (back to the early 90s) for the Crown to skip a generation and for William to get it - anyone my age and older remembers the buffoon Charles and squigygate and all that nonsense no less the whole dial-in parenting skills that he’s famous for - he was ahead of his time in terms of climate change, I’ll give him that, but he was never “King” material - I just hope he can last a few years before handing over the reigns to William - he certainly shouldn’t hang on to the bitter end, that’s for sure.

Aye, I totally agree with this. Personally I think Charles should have abdicated and allowed William to have the throne. Charles is too stuffy, old fashioned and with his past, not well loved. William and Kate would have been a breath of fresh air. Charles will forever be in his mother's shadow and cannot live up to it, whereas William is more contemporary so he wouldn't have the same comparison to his grandmother. There has been some rumours bubbling about William (no idea if they are true or not) and I think if he had ascended, he would have been protected. No way would the public find it palatable to diss him. At the moment there's nothing concrete. However if Murdock and co decide to take pot shots at Charles, then I think William could very well end up in the firing line too.

I honestly feel for both brothers, it'd sicken me if a parent had an affair and that affair partner ended up getting one of the top positions of the country. I don't know how William feels about Camilla but it will be tough to keep up the joyful appearance at his father's coronation.

I think the sad part is that Camilla had what Diana wanted all along. Love. Charles never loved Diana or at a minimum foolishly thought he could grow to love her in time. Recipe for disaster but Charles was under pressure to deliver an heir and so the arranged marriage with Diana materialised. It is a crappy situation to be in i.e. anyone you meet will face such unprecedented scrutiny that it might not be worth it and thus the pool for quality potential partners is diluted versus idealistically marrying someone who privately sees you as someone to help him fulfil a duty. He met and bonded with Camilla some ten years before he married but he was still in his early twenties and presumably wanted to sow his royal oats (with Camilla and others) before settling down as per the alleged Mountbatten advice. In the meantime Camilla married anyway and thus subsequently became off limits for marriage but not for intermittent bonking. Allegedly her husband was ok with this because he was off doing the same himself. Always holding a candle for Camilla, Charles must have thought their intermittent trysts were ok since an unloved Diana was doing the same and their marriage was unsurprisingly imploding. The right people for each other ultimately ended up together. Camilla has been with/known Charles over half a century now. Ironically Diana would face the same dilemma Charles had faced when she dated Hasnat Khan. She loved someone who knew (and who others knew) what the consequences of loving her back meant.

I think both brothers benefited from what went before but I think only one grasped the actual complexity of it all at play. William was mindful to find someone early that he actually loved and not someone he might grow to love in time but would also allow significant time for them to acclimatise to the scrutiny and press attention i.e. they had more years together before marrying than times Charles and Diana had actually physically met before their wedding. Lest we forget that the guy was a pin up with his mothers looks and could have spent years like his father sowing his oats. He settled early and that was crucial and likely deliberate. Meets Kate. Intelligent, educated, good looking, sense of humour, lovely family. Sold.

However, it would need to be something Kate knew was coming and something she wanted to endure. She committed to it and given such a commitment it would be easy to appreciate the regard William would have for her in doing that given what his mother had endured. I doubt he is so stupid as to actually cheat and dupe someone he is still clearly smitten with. For Harry he obviously fell hard for Meghan and her status as a divorcee and non-member of the COE didn't prevent him from marrying someone he loves. Had such an archaic thing happened to him to stop their marriage then I’d be fully on board in supporting him criticising his family and their ways. I think William, a confidante for his mother, can see that she was not perfect, that his father was not perfect, that his step mother was not perfect but in the end deeming that it is better that two people love each other rather than despise each other. I think Harry, who puts his perfect mother on a pedestal, sees Camilla as someone who disrupted this fantasy he had about his parents having this fine marriage and the consequences of her meddling in their marriage all leading to Dianas untimely death. The pragmatist versus the idealist.