Harry stepping down as a senior royal ..PART TWO

[Dowser]

As I finished the last one
Only right I start the new one.
Here you go

I heard an interview with Prof Cathcart yesterday - he sounded more & more deluded with each question.

Well, if she is smart, she will try and establish Canada as Archie's main residence. So, a Canadian preschool. This means that in the event of a divorce, Archie will continue to live in Canada under the Hague convention.

I wonder if he will show at the Rugby draw this week.

BlackCat I think that's exactly what M is doing. The only question is whether H realises it yet. Someone on another thread said custody of royal children rests with the Queen but I don't know if that's royal by birth or by designation. If the latter, then does custody revert to the parents if they renounce their titles?

But they are apparently willing to talk to Gayle King, if not the Palace face-to-face. Just can't stop digging themselves into a hole.

Why do so many people think that their marriage is going to end in divorce ?(within the next few years)

zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/01/harry-meghan-press-truth.html?fbclid=IwAR2sMg8hTmo4hCjkUx8FE-cZCRp72fEpxGY1NMhtHsm9nXt3ANE6dWHYQO8&m=1

Worth linking again. Just read it. The nasty Daily Mail et al have fed us a pack of lies. No wonder they want out. How can you fight against this... it's impossible.

I said before on one of the countless vitriolic threads about MM and I'll repeat it.

In some peoples eyes there is nothing she can do that is right. She could give every penny to charity, shun the press, lead a quiet life and still be called attention seeking for trying to do that. She is hated by a huge section of the british public, the press feed on that (good clickbait and sells newspapers) and there's nothing H&M can do about it.

On one of the concurrent threads running someone put... 'he should've married a british woman, he should not have been allowed to marry a divorcee, she wasn't a suitable bride, what about the rules on who they can marry. Kate is a perfect royal wife'. That just about sums it up. Hello 1950s, haven;t seen you for a while....

Spot the difference in the picture...

Agree with PPs, the fact that the queen publicaly showed support for her vile odious paedophile son and yet is apparently angry at Harry not wanting to be a royal shows her true colours.

I've never understood why she is so revered, she's always come across as a cold hearted, single minded, uncaring individual to me. I will be very happy once she and Phillip are no longer with us and am hoping it will mark the beginning of the end of this family of spongers. Taxpayers money could be far better spent on the NHS.

I've just read through H G Tudor's blog, a very royal narcissist parts 1-8. Interesting take on the situation.

Why is it not considered “disrespectful” that the Queen refused to meet with Harry to discuss his wanting to leave?

What kind of fucked up family forces people to book appointments to speak to their own parents and grandparents (and contact with your own immediate family can be blocked by courtiers) anyway?

Initial reports said that the Queen was willing to talk to Harry. I wonder which is true?

Also, can anyone tell me, what exactly a coutier is? Someone with enough power to block Harry from meeting his grandmother it appears. Would this person be acting on Charles' orders? I had assumed that Harry was prevented from talking with the Queen as , she might be too soft on him and 2. Charles is taking over more and duties now and should be the one to deal with this situation as it will have long term repercussions.

(Sorry for the incoherent thread. Different time zone, no coffee yet.)

The courtiers control everything. They are the channel through which you request to speak to your own Grandmother!

I think the Zelo Street blog is just as bonkers as the Daily Mail. The whole thing has been whipped up into such a frenzy. Who knows what the truth is? I suspect something in the middle. No one here is coming out smelling of roses.

If I was a member of the RF, I wouldn't read or follow any media about myself. That's what a press team is for. Call me shallow or someone with healthy boundaries but I'd only want to see the good coverage.

I don't think they will be able to comment on the security aspect until the details of how the fit into the Royal family are sorted out, because that will affect their entitlement.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/meghan-markle-prince-harry.amp.html

This article is really good

@Noeuf, thanks for that, interesting.

I'm not convinced that the sole reason the press/some of the public are so negative against Meghan is based on racism. I think it's also the fact she's American, divorced, an actress. And she expresses her opinion which is not allowed at all once you're part of the institution. Conformity is key.

Having read it and reflected I think thee is an insidious othering within the UK - colleagues and friends (from other cultures) have mentioned experiences that have just gone over my head.

The Queen could look on the bright side - The spotlight is off Andrew now for a while

Rousette: "Spot the difference in the picture."

I don't know how many times Kate touched her stomach when pregnant. Meghan did become known for doing this but in an exaggerated way, that was either a classic Instagram pose before she did it or one she started - i.e. the top and bottom cradling. Kate seems to be on duty out on the street, heading somewhere. Meghan is on duty on a stage and because she's the only one there it is extremely noticeable and came over to many as affected.

Meghan also was seen a few times on duty bizarrely pushing her coat back to show her stomach. I don't understand why but it looks very odd and unnatural in clips.

Meghan is very tuned up on what is popular and on trend on Instagram (having seen the Tig). She's very slick at that. It's her generation and her thing.

The top and bottom cradling of your bump is a thing on Instagram and by other celebrities - same as the photos of the back of a woman's head on holiday somewhere exotic with her hand behind her pulling her boyfriend along, same as with the hotdog legs beside a pool. There's probably others.

In other words it's a pose or an affectation. So people naturally felt she wasn't natural and was affected.

There wasn't so much fuss when Kate did it as she didn't seem to do it all the time and it seemed more natural. Meghan was constantly photographed holding her bump from the bottom and when she was on stage working at presenting something at the British Fashion Awards she did the IG pose of the top and bottom cradle, as it looks good. Unfortunately, to many, she made that more about her than what she was supposed to be doing. She's very much about the "optics" of things.

That's the difference. It was just one more way that she seemed forced or affected. Same with her giggle and hand over the mouth, like a little girl would. Or the doe eyes. She's an actress and that came over so it's hard to believe she's natural in her body language.

Not that I'm a fan of Kate. I'm not. I want rid of them all. But there is a difference in the poses, for sure. Maybe Kate was being affected but it was more restrained so if she was posing she came over at making it more natural than Meghan.

In real life I don't think I've ever seen anyone pregnant pose like this. It's common place now looking at celeb photos, IG, other social media. Problem is people want genuine and can spot fake.

I will say I've criticised Kate a lot in the past - not sure if on MN or not or other social media.

As soon as someone says Kate is impeccable and gracious and classy I'm quick to remind them all the times she allowed her skirts to be blown up by the wind showing her knickers. No class at all as far as I'm concerned. You can't tell me she wasn't aware of it. She was definitely attention seeking.

I've said before many times when she was due to wed William and people were gushing over her that she wasn't a role model for modern-day women at all. In fact, I got stopped by journalism students on the street in my city who asked if I wanted to comment on it and I said no as wasn't that interested in the RF but then had a chat with them anyway, not filmed, and said I didn't think she was a good choice - had everything handed to her on a plate, did nothing of note waiting for a man for 10 years! I think she's also been extremely lazy in her duties. There was one year they did so little the pair of them. But then I don't think many of them do that much.

Yes, maybe 300 appointments but you condense that down and realise it's a few months of a full time job. Older ones excepted now.

I could complain about all of them.

Nothing comes with price of being torn apart. Long running thread on here went into depth at how she held her baby at at a polo event.

No normal job would expect anyone such an intimate degree of scrutiny and nastiness. She has several life times worth from her deranged relatives..... Why on earth should she have to have more...

Agree about Meghan being fake and affected and way too aware of how to pose for IG. Constantly cradling the baby bump, constant PDA, and hand over mouth giggling.

I don't particularly like her, not that I know her. But nevertheless I still think they ought to be able to step down and try and live a more normal life particularly for Archie's sake.

Does anyone else think that parts of the Sussex Royal website have been changed since they first launched it? On Wednesday, the “Funding” page seemed to state certain things which don’t seem to be there in the same way now. Sorry if it seems vague, but it just reads differently in parts.

Yes it's been altered

It's definitely changed I was looking for a specific part earlier to read DH that I couldn't find anywhere.

Thé biggest issue for me is the Sussexes trading off their Royal status and not carrying out their Royal « duties» so that they can chase the almighty dollar.
Case in point; Lion King première with Beyoncé; one of the first engagements after Meghan’s maternity leave.
Harry was supposed to attend a military dinner of the Marines, as he is the « chief marine» whatever the title is.
Instead he went to the Lion King première with his wife.

Here, he is filmed telling the Disney Chief that Meghan does voice overs
At the time; given the context of it being someone Royal and it being Harry; it could be seen as a joke. ( ie at the time, would Meghan really work as an actress)

However, it was a serious networking opportunity and quite frankly crossing of boundaries.
Meghan has since done a voice over for Disney; proceeds going to an elephant charity.
It’s such a grey area. They didn’t do it for personal commercial gain, but it was a déréliction of duty for Harry; sacking off the Marines.
Thé «Duty» bit is why they get paid and subsidised by the tax payer.

Once the Sussexes start selling the brand of Royalty; so they can personally benefit, it diminishes it.
I think Meghan especially has thought she’s got a 10 year window ( whilst she’s still young; beautiful and relevant) to make their billions.

There’s no denying that racism has been part of the decision to leave the UK; but I’d be amazed if Meghan hadn’t come across it in some form in the US.
But she wants the role of Uber celeb, where she can control the narrative.
It’s just the hypocrisy which is galling; but to be fair, pretty prevalent amongst the À listers in the US.
Thé wanting privacy bit is just a barefaced lie.
Neither Harry nor Meghan like being criticised. That’s it.