Prince Harry and Meghan "Quitting " royal family

Meet the new Diana, just like the old Diana – temperamentally unsuited to being a royal, unable to deal with the pressure, and with a love/hate relationship with the media.

At first I was inclined to put all her problems down to racism, and there’s no doubt that there’s a lot of racism against her. Many right-wingers, and the right-wing tabloids, were immediately prepared to find fault with anything and everything about her. They simply don’t like someone who isn’t white marrying into the royal family and producing mixed-race children, and they never will.

But I don’t think everything can be blamed on that. She’s a professional actress who thrives on media attention, but only the media attention she wants. She wants to pick and choose how she is depicted in the media. She doesn’t have the stoic, stiff-upper lip personality that would get her through the media attention successfully, like Kate.

The ‘firm’ strictly refers to the senior royals, but it can have a much wider meaning.

The royal family has hundreds, perhaps thousands, of employees and many senior ‘managers’. They control, administer, and maintain many large properties, organise hundreds of public engagements a year (in normal times), organise travel and security, deal with the media, run the households, deal with finances, personnel issues, etc., etc. It’s a huge operation, really like a large company.

We can be sure that senior managers of the royal establishment have strong opinions about how things should be done, and try to push the royals in the direction they want. At the top level they are not just flunkies, they shape policy decisions. That’s always been the case.

I think it’s public expectations. This is a factor in any political system but much more so in what is essentially a symbolic monarchy. A member of the royal family has to act in a manner that the public expects its royals to act. Step too far outside of the limits and the public will stop supporting the monarchical system.

The rules may be expressed by Elizabeth or Charles or some prestigious figure but ultimately they’re just passing on what they think the general public is feeling.

It seems it was standard policy, not due to some grudge against her.

George V’s declaration sets out: “The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm.”

As such, Archie will be entitled to the titles when Prince Charles accedes the throne.

George V’s declaration means that only Prince George, as a great-grandson of the monarch down the direct line of succession to the throne, was originally entitled to be a prince, as he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

The Queen did step in ahead of George’s birth to issue letters patent to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children would have the titles of prince and princess.

But they are children of the future monarch, whereas Archie is not.

I’m sure this must have been thoroughly explained to her, so it seems to me that the huge fuss she is making is in bad faith.

This seems to be the narrative that Meaghan is presenting. But that doesn’t mean it’s complete or even accurate.

An equally plausible narrative is that after the initial rush of becoming part of the world’s most famous family, Meaghan came to realize she had what was at best a secondary role in that family. She’s not married to the monarch, or the heir, or the heir to the heir. She may have found herself being the Sarah to Kate’s Diana.

Yes, this ‘princely title’ thing sticks out for me, too. It’s not protocol for a great grandchild to be made a Prince/Princess, and exceptions were made for William’s children, as it would be very odd for the children of a King to not have their own titles. We’re not Czarist Russia where Princes were ten a penny.

I also find the scrap over security strange too - the royal purse has to stop somewhere. Archie is 7th in line to the throne, and he’ll slip down the list rapidly once his cousins start having children.

His status will ultimately be more in line with the children of Princess Anne - they don’t have titles (her choice, actually, as being grandchildren of a Monarch they could have), they have/had jobs like normal people, and pop up at the odd royal wedding in a nice hat. And that’s all we want from them.

I think Meghan has many genuine grievances, but these points do make the pair come across as, well, a little over entitled.

i watched last night. i agree with harry in the history repeating. you take someone who has a support system (meghan), she marries into the family (harry), the firm then cuts the support system she had, and doesn’t give her a new support system.

luckily this time harry was very supportive and even though he was young he remembers what his mum went through. harry is further down on the food chain and is able to protect his wife and child and get them out.

i did have a laugh at learning the national anthem. meghan does know different words to that. seriously, the firm is concerned about how things look and they don’t prep people on basic protocol.

I’m wondering whether The Firm’s attitude has anything to do with Harry’s own legitimacy. I know a DNA test has been ruled out, but the question must surely remain. And the people who are concerned with this may be the very same people who are concerned with a baby’s skin tone.

And I agree that regarding “history repeating itself,” good for Harry for getting his family out of there.

one thing i noticed last night was that the older harry gets the more i see charles in him. his eyes and nose.

Maybe people will start saying he’s Charles’ son not James Hewitt.

If there’s one thing I know, the secret to a private life is holding a tell-all interview with Oprah. :roll_eyes:

Can you guys please not call someone a drama queen after she admits to mental health issues? It’s a rather hateful thing that happens to us all the time.

Yes, his eyes seem to be migrating closer together. Did Diana know any halibuts?

In fairness to them, the issue was probably a bit more complicated than that. But, if so and they have any sense, this is not the issue over which they should pick a fight.

The existing rule would have meant that their children would become princes and princesses when Prince Charles becomes King, on the basis that their father was then the son of the monarch.

But it isn’t really a surprise that there were discussions about revising this rule. It has in recent decades been much questioned, most obviously because it means that Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses. This is why Prince Edward turned down such titles for his children. It is also no great secret that Prince Charles wants to sideline the more remote members of the family. Changing the rules over royal titles would be the most obvious way of symbolising that. Announcing this when Charles becomes King would also be a simple, bold way for him to make his mark in the early days of his reign. But since this is mainly an issue affecting Harry’s children, it would still have been sensible for this to be discussed when he got married. Yes, you can see why Harry and Meghan may have misinterpreted this. But the public probably do agree that, as a general principle, there should be fewer princes and princesses.

But in the interview, Meghan seemed to link the titles with security provided by having such a title, so is there some practical element to the titles, or it all just worthless pomp? She seemed to be indicating that having a Royal title also meant access to Royal security resources.

Harry has been in this family his whole life - the issue of trimming down the immediate royal family has been on the table for decades - he could hardly say he was ignorant of that fact. Both Anne and Edward opted to NOT have royal titles for their children, even though they were entitled to do so.

Given his desire to step back from royal life, and live a more normal existence - why cling onto the idea of an HRH for his son? It seems contradictory. Both Anne and Edward could see that their children could lead a more normal, independent life without it.

…I think it can.

[quote=“Bijou_Drains, post:1, topic:846139, full:true”]
And will spend a lot of time in North America mostly Canada

Can’t say I blame them wanting a normal life [/quote]

A new Bond film…

" in The Man With The Ginger Gun, Bond is working directly on the orders of The Queen.

“She is alarmed by an organisation that has set up a secret base beneath a crater in California.

“Her Majesty is increasingly concerned about the launch of volleys of woke nonsense from the crater.

“The villains – an unnamed man and a woman – claim to be a force of good, determined to make the world a more compassionate place, and demanding that we all be kind.

“Clearly, they have no concept of real life.

“There is a direct threat to the Royal Family, and Bond is flown into California by gyrocopter to sort it all out.”

Buckingham Palace refused to comment on the new Bond film, but scenes inside Buckingham Palace have been filmed already.

Ms Fisher was unable to give away too many details of the script, but she hinted it ends badly for the villains.

“Nobody takes on Her Majesty and wins,” she said.

Watching the media coverage on all this I wish they would stop saying Meghan accused the royals of racisim. (For example, Tina Brown’s interview with CBS News, around the 2:00 mark.) It was Harry who did that. She only repeated what he told her. But it has to be her fault, even though Harry’s hatred for the press and dislike of the royal life existed long before he met her.

Didn’t watch the interview, but have read limited news coverage of it.

To the extent she says she did not anticipate the media intrusions and racial issues, she sounds awfully naive. And Harry was naive or worse, if he did not fill her in on how horrible the media and the family can be to folk marrying into the family.

Meghan is an experienced actress, very aware of the importance of presenting an image and attempting to sway public opinion. I see no reason to believe that experience is not being applied to current publicity - including her claim of mental health issues.

But she wasn’t allowed to sway public opinion. The “Institution” was supposed to do that for her by defending her against attacks from the press. But they didn’t, even though they would for other Royals. And when the non-stop barrage of attacks from the UK press, coupled with death threats, became so unbearable she had thoughts of suicide she was told she couldn’t get the mental help she knew needed because of how it would look.