Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think Meghan Markle has every right to worry about her security?

671 replies

Hardware252525252525 · 20/08/2026 22:07

I’m not a monarchist and haven’t really taken much notice of the whole saga, but obviously do know the main points.

However, the comments across Mumsnet and multiple newspapers and websites are absolutely insane and unhinged. People who don’t know them insisting she’s leaving Harry and the kids, is controlling him, that they’re skint and tge
kids will have to go to state school if Charles doesn’t pay, people saying they hope a random stranger sees her and gives her ‘some home truths’.

It is absolutely crackers and I worry about the sanity of the people who seem to really believe they know them.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
5
maxslice · Today 01:16

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 12:10

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A relationship is not a job.

It is if you marry into the royal family. They even refer to the family as “the firm”. It’s not like marrying Stephen, the engineer or, Kevin, the accountant. Although, learning about your in-laws and their family culture and customs is an extremely common tradition. Additionally, all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the family is essentially “theatre”. I stand by what I said. And have you never heard the term “working royals”? Andrew, for instance, used to be a working royal and now he is not.

Swiftie1878 · Yesterday 17:10

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 17:07

Nah, the weird dislike started well before the Queen died.

You’re right. It began when she started abusing palace staff and complaining about her life as a royal. Then ramped up when they tried to get a half in half out deal as members of the royal family. Then exploded when they did the Oprah interview.

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 17:07

Swiftie1878 · Yesterday 17:06

Part of the reason they are (both) now so disliked.

Nah, the weird dislike started well before the Queen died.

OP posts:
Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 17:06

Doozycan · Yesterday 16:48

Thats waste of space Markie and Harry the ginge Do nothing for the UK all a drain on the UK economy

How do either of them impact the UK economy?

OP posts:
Swiftie1878 · Yesterday 17:06

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 16:16

I agree. One thing that does confuse me is why Harry wanted to escape royal life but also went with prince and princess for his children the minute he was able. It does seem contradictory.

Part of the reason they are (both) now so disliked.

Doozycan · Yesterday 16:48

Thats waste of space Markie and Harry the ginge Do nothing for the UK all a drain on the UK economy

TheHatTrick · Yesterday 16:24

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 16:16

I agree. One thing that does confuse me is why Harry wanted to escape royal life but also went with prince and princess for his children the minute he was able. It does seem contradictory.

I think he just wanted to protect his wife and make her happy. He thought he could keep things the same and also just leave. I think it was quite a shock with Granny didn’t just accept what they told the media they were doing.

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 16:16

Messedupmyusernameagain · Yesterday 16:00

I agree. It should be only George's kids going forward. The rest of them don't need it. The choice should be entirely removed. No one knows if Louis will grow up to be a Prince Edward or a Prince Harry. The most entitled will choose Prince/ Princess. Princess Beatrice, Eugenie, Lilibet and Prince Archie are already unnecessary. In 20 years time it will be even more ridiculous!

I agree. One thing that does confuse me is why Harry wanted to escape royal life but also went with prince and princess for his children the minute he was able. It does seem contradictory.

OP posts:
Messedupmyusernameagain · Yesterday 16:00

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 12:41

It would probably work much better for the individuals if it was only the children of the monarch, the children of the Prince/as of Wales, and the children of the oldest child of the Prince/ss of Wales.

I agree. It should be only George's kids going forward. The rest of them don't need it. The choice should be entirely removed. No one knows if Louis will grow up to be a Prince Edward or a Prince Harry. The most entitled will choose Prince/ Princess. Princess Beatrice, Eugenie, Lilibet and Prince Archie are already unnecessary. In 20 years time it will be even more ridiculous!

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 12:41

Messedupmyusernameagain · Yesterday 12:36

I was going to say the same thing.@Meadowfinch Princess Anne turned down Lord/Lady just as Princess Margaret's children are, not Prince/princess. They weren't entitled to it. It is sexist and will cause obvious issues for the Wales kids.

It would probably work much better for the individuals if it was only the children of the monarch, the children of the Prince/as of Wales, and the children of the oldest child of the Prince/ss of Wales.

OP posts:
Messedupmyusernameagain · Yesterday 12:36

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 12:15

This is entirely incorrect.

Only the children of the sons of the monarch are entitled to be styled prince or princess, as well as the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales. The Queen offered Mark Phillips a title so that his children could be styled as children of a Duke/Earl.

Harry’s children were not grandchildren of the monarch through the male line when they were born, and so were not entitled to be styled prince and princess. When the Queen died and Charles became King, Harry’s children became grandchildren of the monarch through a son, and were automatically entitled to be styled prince and princess.

An exception was issued by the Queen for Charlotte and Louis so that they’d be princess and prince at birth.

George and Louis’ children will automatically be entitled to be styled prince and princesses when William is King. Charlotte’s children will not be princesses or princes because she is female.

Edited

I was going to say the same thing.@Meadowfinch Princess Anne turned down Lord/Lady just as Princess Margaret's children are, not Prince/princess. They weren't entitled to it. It is sexist and will cause obvious issues for the Wales kids.

HelenaWilson · Yesterday 12:35

The sons of Princess Mary, daughter of George V, did not have royal titles. The elder, George, was known as Viscount Lascelles, then inherited his father's title, Earl of Harewood. The younger didn't have a title at all - he was the Hon. Gerald Lascelles.

Anthony Armstrong Jones accepted an earldom when he married Princess Margaret, daughter of George VI. Their children were Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Armstrong Jones.

That's the position Princess Anne's children would have been in if Mark Phillips had accepted a title. Since he didn't accept a title, they have no titles.

Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 12:15

Meadowfinch · Yesterday 09:48

This is incorrect. Princess Anne chose not to take titles for her children when they were born because she wanted them to have a more normal life. Any grandchild of the monarch is entitled to be Prince or Princess which is why the Sussex children have changed.

This is entirely incorrect.

Only the children of the sons of the monarch are entitled to be styled prince or princess, as well as the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales. The Queen offered Mark Phillips a title so that his children could be styled as children of a Duke/Earl.

Harry’s children were not grandchildren of the monarch through the male line when they were born, and so were not entitled to be styled prince and princess. When the Queen died and Charles became King, Harry’s children became grandchildren of the monarch through a son, and were automatically entitled to be styled prince and princess.

An exception was issued by the Queen for Charlotte and Louis so that they’d be princess and prince at birth.

George and Louis’ children will automatically be entitled to be styled prince and princesses when William is King. Charlotte’s children will not be princesses or princes because she is female.

OP posts:
Hardware252525252525 · Yesterday 12:10

maxslice · Yesterday 03:06

She was an actress. As an actor, if you are cast in role significantly different from your own life, you MUST research the role, context, and character. You also must understand subtext, subtleties, and relationship dynamics with the other characters. Much of what the Royal Family does is essentially theatre. She did NOT do even the minimum of research. Blasé and extremely lazy. You want to do well joining the Windsors? READ THE DAMN SYLLABUS. Or, obviously, you will fail. Which she has.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A relationship is not a job.

OP posts:
Meadowfinch · Yesterday 09:48

Messedupmyusernameagain · Yesterday 09:25

They aren't entitled to have them because their ' Royalty'comes from their mother not their father. Only children down the male line can be Prince/Princess. I don't think this has been changed even though now Charlotte is ahead of Louis. It should have been so Louis children can't have them either. We don't need random princes and princesses around the place but as we've seen, the Royals are very reluctant to reduce themselves in size unless they are forced into it.

This is incorrect. Princess Anne chose not to take titles for her children when they were born because she wanted them to have a more normal life. Any grandchild of the monarch is entitled to be Prince or Princess which is why the Sussex children have changed.

Messedupmyusernameagain · Yesterday 09:28

Lobelia123 · Yesterday 07:48

She’s not wrong to be worried, but they are wrong to expect British taxpayers to pay for it. Cutting back on private jet travel and designer clothing would go a long way to covering security costs. They are very entitled

I agree. If he can't afford it, ask The King out of his private fortune , but I think they are very wealthy indeed. The security wasn't about affordability it was about Intelligence and I think being armed, which they shouldn't have access to.

Messedupmyusernameagain · Yesterday 09:25

StormGazing · Yesterday 07:00

Also Zara and Peter, I don’t think they have any titles at all

They aren't entitled to have them because their ' Royalty'comes from their mother not their father. Only children down the male line can be Prince/Princess. I don't think this has been changed even though now Charlotte is ahead of Louis. It should have been so Louis children can't have them either. We don't need random princes and princesses around the place but as we've seen, the Royals are very reluctant to reduce themselves in size unless they are forced into it.

Lobelia123 · Yesterday 07:48

She’s not wrong to be worried, but they are wrong to expect British taxpayers to pay for it. Cutting back on private jet travel and designer clothing would go a long way to covering security costs. They are very entitled

StormGazing · Yesterday 07:00

HelenaWilson · 27/08/2026 20:28

The only royals who are entitled to be called princess and prince, who don't use the titles, are Edward and Sophie's children. They had the option of deciding for themselves when they turned 18. Unfortunately for Lady Louise she turned 18 around the time someone else was kicking up a stink about her children not having royal titles, so even if she'd wanted to, it was probably decided better not.

Also Zara and Peter, I don’t think they have any titles at all

StormGazing · Yesterday 06:57

Bunnycat101 · 27/08/2026 21:10

I think it has been bizarre how their return has been covered. There was a news article saying they’d landed. Honestly there should be no coverage of this sort of stuff and it does make me question the security concerns when someone on their team is leaking their movements to the press.

I also wonder how on earth they will manage schooling. There seems to be a web of silence around the Cambridge kids. I’ve never seen someone release a photo of one of them at a party or a football match but by all accounts they’ve had fairly normal ish experiences. I’m not sure if the same will be extended to Harry’s children if he also is more prolific re media.

I thought that H&M ‘leaked’ this sort of thing themselves, like Megains fear of lack of security … causing their own drama as ever … no doubt soon we’ll have another ‘we’re being chased / stalked / papped nonsense faux drama leaked to the papers in the coming weeks to keep themselves in print

maxslice · Yesterday 03:06

Hardware252525252525 · 20/08/2026 22:27

I don’t understand why Harry didn’t prepare her more. He would’ve known that his kids wouldn’t be prince and princesses whilst the Queen was alive, should’ve warned her about the protocol when meeting his brother and sister in law etc. I don’t understand why he didn’t prepare her.

She was an actress. As an actor, if you are cast in role significantly different from your own life, you MUST research the role, context, and character. You also must understand subtext, subtleties, and relationship dynamics with the other characters. Much of what the Royal Family does is essentially theatre. She did NOT do even the minimum of research. Blasé and extremely lazy. You want to do well joining the Windsors? READ THE DAMN SYLLABUS. Or, obviously, you will fail. Which she has.

maxslice · Yesterday 02:57

She makes herself and her family targets. It’s hard for me to care about her privileged anxieties.

Beesandhoney123 · 04/09/2026 23:51

Meghan has every right to worry about her security. Assume H and others have pointed out the Cotswolds is not the USA and put her mind at rest.

M has spent the first 36 years of her life as an Actor, independant self proclaimed feminist, married, divorced, married again. She is perfectly capable and used to doing things without an armed guard.

H must have an old mate from the army he could employ perhaps, to keep a happy home life. Not paid for by the UK tsxpayer.

She has been so rude about the UK, which is very disrepectful to her dh, who was a prince and gave it all up for her!

TheHatTrick · 28/08/2026 12:38

Filoparcels017 · 28/08/2026 02:32

Couldn’t agree more Blueandwhitestripey

I’m also pleased by the results of the poll op.

Sanity has been restored.

Of course Meghan has an every “right” to worry about her security.

Why is that a surprise?

TheHatTrick · 28/08/2026 11:41

MrsLeonFarrell · 28/08/2026 11:32

The press were never going to write about where the children were at school or where they are living. Paps aren't going to haunt the school gates. This has been the case for decades. When Meghan spoke about 40 paps outside the school she simply didn't know what she was talking about.

The reason the Wales family have one photographer taking photos on first days at a new school is part of a long standing agreement. It acknowledges legitimate public interest in the Heir's family whilst ensuring children can be children and have a private life. No one is demanding photos of the children of minor royals going to school and the UK press wouldn't print them even if someone took a snap.

Exactly. It was also an intentional knock on others. “We care more about our children”.

And now, here’s they are but won’t be able to say “well, I just didn’t understand how things work.”

Swipe left for the next trending thread