Harry and Meghan court dramas (not Suits)

[ARoseInHarlem]

Starting this thread while I digest the last few posts on the previous thread. I think the H&M saga could be as unsettling for the RF as the Charles & Diana bad publicity in the 1990s, if not worse.

@calmcoolandcollected

Is MM an HRH? and Archie? Didn't Diana have her HRH removed upon divorce?

This is why I think the H&M saga could be dramatic for the RF. You can't have an HRH going rogue like this, behaving like a loose canon. They need to find a way to bring them back into the fold, or else cut them out. Charles's political commentary was about architecture and farming/the environment. Harry is talking about racism (as well as the environment and mental health), and his wife is talking about racism and sexism and is openly political! It's a completely different ballgame. Moreover, Charles is due to be King, he would never jeopardise the institution. Harry, having turned his back on the military for LA, is acting as though the institution is less important than what he and Meghan have to say.

I don’t get MM’s point about the £billion. She doesn’t seem to realise that people came to see a Royal wedding. Harry could have been marrying a sheep and, so long as the Queen was there and pomp and ceremony, it would still have been televised and people would have lined the streets. It was a display put on (and paid for) by the British tax payer Royal family.

MM seems so dismissive of her lavish and magnificent wedding, where she was feted and cheered. Where Prince Charles gracefully stepped in to give her away. Instead she is petulantly trying to argue that she was the main event and in fact doing the Royal Family a favour.

I'm sure H is still much loved

By some of his family perhaps, but getting him back to that position with the public may be beyond even the RF's spin

It's sometimes said on these threads that posters keep "rehashing old stuff", but there's hardly any need to when they just go on and ON making themselves look foolish and tawdry. There's simply no need to do this and if they had any sense they'd stop, but sadly sense seems beyond them

@ARoseInHarlem, no, only Harry is an HRH.

Wasn’t MM made an HRH upon her wedding? They still have them, but they can’t use them in public.

Meghan is an HRH but not Archie. I read that Archie will become a Prince when Charles takes the throne because he will be a grandson of the monarch. So that means Louise and her brother could use the title Princess/Prince surely. Will need to check. Harry and Meghan have agreed not to use HRH officially.,,

Won’t that be odd. An American teenager/young man, living an LA lifestyle 5,000 miles away, a Prince of the British RF. I’m sure he’ll be quite the eligible bachelor 20-30 years from now!

Wonder what he’ll make of the UK, growing up with a mother so anti-UK.

I thought they had rejected titles for Archie, much like Zara and Peter?
Does that mean they had rejected a title while he was little, but would accept the title of Prince for him on the ascension of Charles?

@Viviennemary

Meghan is an HRH but not Archie. I read that Archie will become a Prince when Charles takes the throne because he will be a grandson of the monarch. So that means Louise and her brother could use the title Princess/Prince surely. Will need to check. Harry and Meghan have agreed not to use HRH officially.,,

@Viviennemary Who is Louise and her brother?

Louise and James are the children of Prince Edward and Sophie.

Sorry. Louise is Lady Louise Windsor daughter of Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex. Couldn't remember her brother's name. It's James.

Cross post

It would be chalked up to a huge mistake/quarter life crisis

Um, Harry is 35. Unless he lives to 140 I would say that a mid life crusts is more accurate.

Crisis! Not crusts!

I thought they had rejected titles for Archie, much like Zara and Peter?

He wasn’t entitled to be named a Prince; only the children and grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to it, along with the children on the first born son of the Prince of Wales (currently). The rules were changed for William’s kids because previously, only the first born son of the first born son of the monarch was entitled to Prince and would be first in line. However, before George’s birth this was changed so that regardless of the sex of the first born, they would be Prince/sess and would be first in line to the throne. The titles were also extended to the other children of the first born
Archie was not entitled as he’s not a child of the first born of the prince of Wales. However, he will be once Charles becomes king as he will be a grandchild
Anne’s children would have been titled Prince/sess through a different route. They would have gained the titles through their father but Anne and Mark Phillips turned down a title for him so that their children would not be titled. As usual, Anne was very sensible as she knew they would never be in line as she was below both Charles and her two younger brothers, so made sure her children could lead more ‘normal’ lives. Worked out very well for Zara as she is able to have sponsorships in her eventing career

I think Harry may be able to redeem himself if he returned to the UK alone. Imagine the first headlines and photos of him reunited with W&K, genuinely happy to be back on British soil, playing with his nephews and niece

I used to think the same but am no longer so sure. There's only so much people can keep blaming Meghan for; after all he chose to marry her, knowing exactly what he was bringing her into - and this after a rushed relationship, much of it spent apart

I know it's said he's not the brightest lamp on the street, but the whole thing shows an utter lack of judgement and I don't think this will be easily forgotten

I agree that the monarchy is going to look very different under Charles.

The days of the RF being represented by a young family with growing children are long gone. The trouble is, much of their charm rests in that image. It's going to be a struggle to keep the public interested once it's represented by an elderly man whose interests largely involve being in the country away from people.

But it would be easy to strip MM of her HRH but not so Prince Harry as he is a blood Royal, short of banishing him.

It would be easy to strip MM of her HRH but not so Prince Harry

I wouldn't worry TBH; they did it with Fergie and even with Diana, the mother of a future king, so if Harry did come back alone they'll strip it from Meghan so darned fast it'll be "blink and you miss it"

We haven't seen the RF for three months and who is concerned? Waste of space and money the lot of them. That is my opinion. But they don't care since we are largely paying for them anyway.

Could anyone enlighten me about the billion dollar lawsuit? I missed that during lockdown!

@saltycat as I recall, the Queen's speech in early April had a massive impact. I would hazard a guess that if was far more influential in this country than anything H and M have said recently.

Where to start...