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

it's not really that weird at all to be honest.

he got the titles and earned them because space wizzard something something, like the rest of them.

so he may as well use them, even if it is to make money, you can be sure the rest of them are likely at the same thing.

he was born into it meaning he earned it, that is how the british monarchy works, one is entitled to be entitled because of birth right.

the whole monarchy came into being because the invisible space wizard called god said something according to someone, so that is how the space wizard is involved.

Well, there's no arguing with that!

Anyway, you posted yesterday that he's "happy and free". As far as I can see, he's mostly miserable with occasional outbreaks of being mildly happy if he's with Nacho, playing polo or several timezones away from Meghan. He's lost what friends he had, launched a Category 5 attack on pretty well all his family, wrote a tell-all book containing "his truth", especially about the poor frozen todger incident and the efficacy of his mother's favourite Elizabeth Arden cream on his damaged member, to the point that "it felt like my mother was in the room". Lad, you need some therapy!

And all for what? He hasn't got his happiness or his freedom, as far as I can see.

You're getting you "theirs" and "his" mixed up. Harry is a Prince by birth. Their children are Princess and Princess by virtue of the fact that their Grandfather is King. That is why, as I am sure that you know, they didn't get their titles until he became King. But William and Catherine's children did get their Prince and Princess titles immediately, because they are direct decedents of the future monarch. I can imagine the teeth grinding of Meghan at that news! Archie was apparently offered the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton but it seems H&M turned it down.

Archie and Lilibet are too young to care. Perhaps a role model could have been Princess Anne, who turned down titles for her children, Zara and Peter. But no.

Harry probably was very close to the late Queen. But his treatment of her and indeed Prince Philip in their final months was nothing short of disgraceful.

So, explain to me how Harry is a Prince as he was only the grandson of the Queen?

Only George was entitled to the title Prince at birth. Charlotte and Louis were not, but the Queen gave it to them anyway because eventually they were going to be the grandchildren of the King.

Female decendents (grandchildren) of the King or Queen are not entitled to be called prince or princess - hence Ann's children do not have titles. Andrew choose that his kids would have titles. In fairness to the Queen, she looked after Ann and her children by gifting Ann an estate where they all live (including Ann's ex-husband).

King Charles was so mean he evicted his son from the house that Harry's grandmother the Queen gifted to him as a wedding present. Its now empty and the Crown Estate (who owe Harry £2.4m for its refurbishment) is now empty and not earning the £200K a year Harry was prepared to pay for the lease.

As for the treatment of the Queen by Harry - I think she was far more preoccupied by dealing with her son's association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell to worry about Harry and Meghan wanting to move to leave the UK. And Philip was probably completely oblivious to what was going on holed up with his mistress in a cottage on the Sandringham Estate.

The Earl of Dumbarton is already Harry's title. And for obvious reasons, its not a great title to have if you don't want your child to be bullied.

Archie and Lilibet obviously don't care, but it is the right decision to let them decide for themselves when they are 18.

I don’t understand your first sentence. He was actually Prince Henry of Wales at birth.

In 2013, the late Queen added a patent updating the old George V 1917 patent, to give all of the Cambridge children equal standing, as they will all be the children of the King when William succeeds Charles. Oh, and let’s not forget that Meghan claimed race was a factor in Archie not being made a prince. Which was, needless to say, a lie

And edited to confirm the Princess Royal’s name is Anne, not Ann

Or Harry is now sixth in line, is actually rank and file in the scheme of things and is aware of it, his kids are further down the line, he has a dad who has a long known desire to slim things down like other monarchies are doing (i.e. titles for direct line only/removal of titles for those outside that line : see fall out in Danish monarchy for example) and Harry was allowed to go build his life overseas and free to make loads of dosh and do it all in a country where titles for his kids actually mean the square root of feck all.

That said, the big mistake made was not assigning at least one full time protection officer to Harry and his family and having an agreement in place for funding that. His dad has the money to pay. The kind of deal his mother was offered but one she turned down. Who even knows if that was even offered though. It could have been.

Also the Met Police is racist now? If, for example, a few employees (among thousands globally) in the company I work for are outed as racist then, in common sense land, that doesn't mean we're all racist since we're all in the same company. It just means those specific people are racist. You're using selective bias there and making a whopping generalisation.

Ah well, HRH, Prince Michael of Kent, 1st cousin of the Queen is still a Prince of the UK as he was born the 3rd son of the 4th son of George V. He is 52nd in line to the throne. 😂

He only retired a year ago or so (when caught selling access to the Kremlin of all places)!

I'm surprised you missed this a few days ago:

I believe these former officers were involved in protection of the Royals and MPs/diplomats. Not a lot of information about this in the racist British press!

According to some report/investigation on the Met, there is a real problem with racism and misogony in the Met Police and they haven't faced up to it.

A trauma from his childhood. Funny how he was well able to park his trauma when doing multiple pre-arranged pap walks to promote his friends new London night club back in '05. The traumatised by the photographers shtick is part of his shmäh (i.e. in the Schwarzeneggar Netflix doc he talks about using exagerrated BS to serve as attention seeking self-promotion - so called shmäh). His mothers death still serves him well in that regard as well (see Heart of Invictus).

The venue was the Hurlingham Club and was very easily determined online with the aid of a tweet from the Well Child CEO i.e. that background looks awfully like the Hurlingham Club and Well Child have used this venue before. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce where it would be held. The whole secrective venue was more than likely PR promotional fluff and there was no need for any rabid press to do a Sherlock Holmes on it because they seemingly just don't care anymore. Harry and Meghan are only of interest now as they merely serve as click bait for stuff like the Daily Mail Online even when they promote charities.

Engrossed? Likewise. They are boring and predictable. To clarify I mean the UK press. The Mail Online and supermarket gossip magazines are the only media interested. They'll sniff anything banal out to create content.

You or @jm08 care to explain a traumatised Harry doing pap walks for a pal or happy to ignore that point?

Indeed it is. Your dodge is also noted.

Why don't we try an experiment then since Invictus has begun.

*Goes into Sky News website*

Morocco Earthquake

*scrolls*

Job Losses

*scrolls*

North Korea

*scrolls*

Spanish FA president

*scrolls*

Banning Dogs

*scrolls*

Twindemic

*scrolls*

Lots more understandably on the Morocco Quake and a lot more scrolling.

Into Analysis section

Ah – there we go Invictus/Harry/Negative headlines/Reset time. An opinion piece. Filler.

*Checks Most Read articles*

I don’t see the article you posted in that top 10 either. It didn't make the main page, was posted at 1am.

Invictus is his pet project. If you’re using Sky News as a UK media metric for promoting/embracing Prince Harrys pet project then you need a better yardstick frankly. Any actual activity from him will be reported on but given how intermittent these are then I stand by my point that it is the ridiculous tittle/tattle stuff which now mainly drives their UK media coverage. (e.g. they go for dinner and the Mail Online is all over it).

I clarified my point and it's not the gotcha you think it is. I would argue that, per my last post, that UK media outlet Sky News doesn't regard Invictus/Harry as important. Consider them posting one opinion piece today and burying an article about it in the early hours of Monday morning as caring if you like but I wouldn't. Now if Sky were doing coverage of the games and devoting time to do one of their filler pieces to Invictus (e.g. a 20 minute mini piece) then you'd have a point. It is UK veterans after all and it is worthy of coverage beyond opinion pieces and buried articles.

*double post*

Ah no, we will call this one myth busted.

Those are media outlets reporting on the Invictus Games of which Harry is a patron. It’s an event that is promoted and gets picked up on. When the likes of the Washington Post start speculating about their marriage, why Meghan is wearing a stress patch or similar guff in their reporting then talk to me. Beyond any noteworthy actual news (e.g. court case developments) these outlets don’t care about Brand Sussex. Except for the Mail Online et al because churning guff makes them money.