To be shocked at some RF members turning their back?

[fiheka]

It has been reported that some Royal Family members literally turned their back on Prince Harry at Prince Philip's funeral and refused to even acknowledge him.
I have had extended family members behave badly and are in no hurry to be friendly. But I think this is appalling behaviour. I would never do that and especially not at a funeral.
It reminds me of that video being shared where William and Kate totally snub and ignore Harry and Meghan.
It is just so rude and awful.

Would the British media ever agree a pact and not report on anything they do. Not even mention them. For 3 months. Id love to see Meghans reaction to that.

@Wheelerdeeler

Would the British media ever agree a pact and not report on anything they do. Not even mention them. For 3 months. Id love to see Meghans reaction to that.

Yes please.

Shit, quoted wrong post

@SheldonesqueTheBstard

I, Hazza, do promise to eat your burgers for ever more as long as you wear that same outfit and write books about seats. I will remain forever foofstruck and dribble helplessly in your presence.

I Meggi will always overlook your choice in party attire and will not resent you being born second for much longer. I will feature chickens at every opportunity and will forgive you if you act like a cockerel

I will commission a coin for our new country in order that they can celebrate our arrival. It will replace the currency eventually because we are bloody well going to be important somewhere.

JW. Amen.

All. Just the three of us - we can make it UP if we try 🎶

Brilliant. Especially the "foofstruck and dribble helplessly in your presence" part.

😂😂😂

@SheldonesqueTheBstard you are on fire at the moment

Would the British media ever agree a pact and not report on anything they do. Not even mention them. For 3 months. Id love to see Meghans reaction to that.

I'm sure Meghan would be thrilled beyond words if the British tabloids stopped being so obsessed with her.

The reason the British tabloids are so angry with her is because they make a shit-ton of money off the royals and especially off royal babies. There are tabloid photographers who have rage-tweeted about how much money Megzit has cost them, how they were counting on Meghan making them wealthy.

That's why they keep writing articles about her. Because those articles get a very high amount of engagement, and because they make money.

If you stopped reading and clicking on them - and especially stopped increasing the interest in Meghan by writing comments - the tabloids would stop printing then. By writing about them, you are literally increasing interest and sending a message to the tabloids to keep writing about them. If you genuinely wanted to stop hearing about them, you'd simply stop paying attention to them. Not obsessively golloping down every morsel you can find then running to Mumsnet to discuss it ad infinutum.

Turning your back and not speaking is far less damaging than going on national TV and telling so many lies designed to make your family look bad. H said he takes Archie on a little seat on his bike but his father never did that for him when he was small. A photo emerged a few days later of Charles riding a bike with Harry on little seat and William on his own bike riding along beside them. Harry looked about 3 or 4. M inferred Archie not allowed to be a Prince because of his colour. The truth Letters Patent say he can't be a Prince until Charles on the throne. M claimed she had not seen her sister Samantha for 19 or 20 years. Samantha produced a photo with M in of her own graduation 13 years before. M said she was married but AoC 3 days before wedding. AoC says no they were not. M & H a pair of liars. All this whilst Prince Philip in hospital on his death bed. Disgraceful behaviour If it was my family I would have been furious with them and never spoke to them again.

@ohforarainyday

The British Media did try to stop reporting on H&M when they gave the names of the 4 publications they would stop working with. They lasted all of 3 days. CNN, Ruiters etc. took over the mantle, and the tabloids couldn't stand losing all that money to them. After whinging and moaning that 'we will not report on them then', they came back to reporting. It seems that the sales took a big hit tbh.

I can never understand the excuse that you cannot get away from H&M. The biggest pop stars, I have no interest in. Like Harry Styles, Taylor S, etc. I like their music and I am aware they are big right now, but I know absolutely nothing about them because I don't follow them. It would be stranger still for me to go to chats were they are mentioned to disparage them and go on about how I don't want to hear about them.

A lot of that is hugely twisting or outright lying about what they said, or twisting innocent things to serve your own agenda.

M inferred Archie not allowed to be a Prince because of his colour. The truth Letters Patent say he can't be a Prince until Charles on the throne
H&M's claim is "The Palace said they were changing the rules so Archie wouldn't be made a prince when Charles becomes King." We have no way of knowing if that claim is accurate or not, but it's very clear that they were referring to Archie's title AFTER Charles is crowned, not before. To claim it's the other way around - that they expected Archie to be a prince from birth - is simply not what they said.

A photo emerged a few days later of Charles riding a bike with Harry on little seat and William on his own bike riding along beside them.
Maybe Charles took the boys bike riding only once as a PR thing. Maybe Harry genuinely doesn't remember this one single incident because he was only three and it's extremely rare to be able to remember things that happened when you were three. Maybe he genuinely has no memory of Charles taking him biking because it didn't happen regularly and wasn't part of his growing up. Maybe it's wrong to call someone a liar because they don't have perfect recall of every single thing that's ever happened to them from birth on.

Maybe you should ask why the BRF chose to release that photo with the deliberate intention of painting their own son/brother/grandson as a liar.

M claimed she had not seen her sister Samantha for 19 or 20 years. Samantha produced a photo with M in of her own graduation 13 years before.
It's pretty obvious they've never had any kind of relationship with each other and have had no meaningful contact since Meghan was a child. Quibbling over whether it's 13 years or 19 years is just petty. The fact Meghan even said "19 or 20 years" indicates she wasn't certain of the exact time. I have cousins I've never had any real relationship with, if someone asked about them I'd say "Oh I never really knew them and haven't spoken to them since I was a kid." But actually it's quite possible that maybe we attended a 50th anniversary party together once when I was 20 and I've simply forgotten because it was years and years ago and we barely exchanged two words.

I'm not "a liar" because I simply forgot/don't count briefly being in the same room 15 years ago.

Not to mention, we only have proven liar and scammer Samatha Grant's word that the photo was taken 13 years ago. This woman literally faked a Princess Diana-style car crash that never happened, and has lied about so many things, why are you taking her as the bastion of truth? Hell, Samantha Grant's own mother is on the record as saying Samantha is a pathological liar and a "toxic abuser" who had hated Meghan since she was born, used to racially abuse Doria, and that there was never any meaningful relationship or contact with Samantha and Meghan.

I think it is correct that Harry's children won't be Prince/Princess - the last change was in 2012 and clearly states only the eldest child of the Prince of Wales (not a Prince of Wales, so talking about our current Price of Wales) will have children titled Prince/Princess. The change wasn't just about the problem with a potential first born being a daughter and then dropping below a potential brother.

So I think M&H are correct on that, but bearing in mind Harry hadn't even met Meghan when the last change was made in 2012, I think trying to link it to potential racism is stupid and misrepresenting the situation. Harry's children were not going to be Princes etc.

It's out there to read, but needs to be read carefully. Yes, Harry would have been told in 2012 that his children wouldn't receive titles (always known Charles wanted to slim titled royalty down). So Harry gets to argue now and threaten it's because of racism, when he would have known since 2012 - but he's not very bright anyhow.

I hope Charles sticks to the plan of slimming down titles and doesn't bow to the threats of "how it looks" because Meghan is mixed race. Otherwise we'll end up one day with a cousin of the monarch that no-one really knows calling themselves a Prince (Queen's cousin in the news currently for instance, mad that he's a Prince etc). Direct line only and then title disappears (as it will after Harry in that line).

I know everyone's saying when Charles becomes King it would be the norm etc, but going by Harry's reaction and anger I don't think he understood the implications of slimming down the monarchy and what the changes in 2012 implied for him.

I hope that same with Charlotte and Louis and title disappears with their children. Only children of a monarch and direct line heir then title disappears. Looks as if that was the plan how else do you get rid of extraneous prince/princesses no-one knows.

Linley is grandson of a King and has no title of Prince (as his mum, Margaret was female), however the way to get rid of extended family having titles is keeping it close to line of succession. Harry isn't close to that anymore so makes sense for title to disappear.

To claim it's the other way around - that they expected Archie to be a prince from birth - is simply not what they said.

Meghan said she expected Archie to be treated the same as the other grandchildren, which does suggest titled Prince from birth, since the only other grandchildren have all been titled in that way from birth.

www.nettyroyal.nl/names-titles/a-title-for-the-children-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle/
this is an easy to digest version of similar discussions - but in 2012 it does say "the" rather than "a" which is relevant as it is very specific and refers to his eldest child only. Harry demanding they do similar for him!

"Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; and that 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 the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.

It says their will be Duke. I think Harry is demanding Prince and hasn't accepted the slimming down idea etc, he hadn't met Meghan when the above was pointedly drafted. So he is causing mayhem. I know everywhere mostly saying that Archie would have been entitled on Charles ascending the throne, I'm not so sure and there are others that read the above to be in support of Charles' determination to slim RF down. There is now threats of how "it looks" to slim it down now he married Meghan (5 years after 2012....)

Maybe Charles took the boys bike riding only once as a PR thing. Maybe Harry genuinely doesn't remember this one single incident

I'm afraid there are lots of photos of Harry on a bike / on the back of Charles's bike / being pulled along on a trailer by Charles on a bike, at various ages and in various places. It wasn't just once aged three.

Maybe you should ask why the BRF chose to release that photo with the deliberate intention of painting their own son/brother/grandson as a liar.

Well, they're not painting him as a liar are they, he is a liar, and they are providing evidence and putting the record straight. I imagine it's because they are fed up with his lying.

I disagree that it's acceptable for the BRF to engage in a smear campaign against their own son/grandson.

What the BRF have released or leaked about Harry over the years is far worse than what Harry said in that one interview.

@ohforarainyday

I disagree that it's acceptable for the BRF to engage in a smear campaign against their own son/grandson.

What the BRF have released or leaked about Harry over the years is far worse than what Harry said in that one interview.

What have they leaked? I don’t follow too much and I’m kind of not bothered who is right and wrong as I take all of it with a pinch of salt but like you said no family should turn on each other so I’m genuinely interested in what they leaked about Harry.

royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-was-george-v-thinking.html

scroll down (quite a long way to bottom) to last update after Archie born referring to 2012 saying likely always known - as otherwise why not use 2012 to update to all sons of the Prince of Wales? Only a couple of years difference in age between W&H so would have made sense.

think it is done because it starts the slimming down, and Harry won't accept it and partly why he's so angry. He didn't understand implications of 2012 and now saying should change it otherwise they'll be accused of racism.

@ohforarainyday

Samantha is like 56, did she actually first graduate 13 years ago? MM looks like a teenager in that picture. Also, the certificate that says 2006 is totally different to the one she is holding in the picture.

I don't think Harry counts PR photo shoots as proper family time.

Meghan never, ever said Archie should be prince from birth. She clearly said he is supposed to be prince when PC takes over, and they were changing those rules. The tabloids keep repeating this lie.

Yes I think they're correct that it's changing and wouldn't be Prince when Charles ascends as per 2012, however they're conflating it with racism is the issue.

I disagree that it's acceptable for the BRF to engage in a smear campaign against their own son/grandson.

It's not really a smear campaign though, is it? He has told a lie about them in public, and they are correcting it by telling the truth and providing evidence to back it up. Harry is the one making false claims and damaging his family's credibility and reputation - or what you might call "engaging in a smear campaign".

How anyone can defend a liar and suggest that those who correct the lie are "smearing" the liar, honestly, the mind boggles. Truly through the looking glass stuff.

What the BRF have released or leaked about Harry over the years is far worse than what Harry said in that one interview.

I think the last year or two have actually shown how well they protected him over the years. Most people had no idea what he was like until he started ignoring advice and making his own decisions about comms. The RF PR team did a great job building that much loved persona for him.

It will be interesting yo see if the Wessex children take their titles when they are 18. They can have them now but their parents decided not to. I think they will stick with the titles they have now. I don't see any point in the Sussex children being Princes or Princesses of the United Kingdom when America doesn't even use titles.