Harry - what next?

[TrashyPanda]

Continuation thread for all things Harry, Meghan and all things Archewell.

welcome back everyone!

Being fair to Andrew the Falklands War lasted about 2 months, he served in the Navy for 22 years. It was a very small fraction of his years.

The point s their egos are so huge they think they knowbetter than anyoneelse how things shouldbe done. Tgey were going to reform the monarchy. . They are always right, nothng is ever their fault, they don't like being told no and throw a tantrum if they are.

Harry did meet the entry requirement for Sandhurst.

The grades didn't change to their current (higher) level until a couple of years after he went.

(Yes, I know there are rumours that he was helped to get the grades needed, but on paper he met the requirement as it stood then)

Did Edward not attempt to join the Marines bit couldn't pass the commando course? Rather than it being his choice not to join up.

Not according to the Guardian at the time

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/13/prince-edward-leaves-marines-training-1987-archive?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I've always thought Harry might have benefited from taking on a similar role (S&R, or Air Ambulance) post forces career. He seemed to genuinely enjoy flying helicopters, and it would have provided a similar "regimented" way of life, which i think he misses.

Plus, as you say, providing a useful service to Society. It may have also given him an insight into others lives and a greater appreciation of his privilege.

I wish they’d find their true peace. I don’t know if going into hiding is realisric. Meghan essentially gave up a steady acting gig and a career path that was put on ice at its peak. She’s ambitious and outgoing, I don’t think people like that can not go forward just because they’re married.

I also dont think they were wrong to write a book about a family who for years were allegedly leaking stories about them. You can’t play the ‘family loyslty’ card when clearly loyalty never existed & they’re acting like a firm before a family.

where it’s all gone wrong is finding meaningful charity work.

I don’t see them continuing Diana’s work and breaking down stigmas of HIV, bravely influencing landmine laws even though it was highly political and she was intimidated to stay away. There has got to be a 2023 version of that and I don’t think they’ve found it. The issues they choose already have a tonne of attention.

Who was leaking stories about them? I know they've claimed it, was it verified?

I believe it was thoroughly discussed @Maireas in the Oprah documentary and Netflix and book.

No we can’t be 100% sure of anything but the idea that they’re not a firm that is highly powerful and political, and a cheerful, loyal and loving family is naive and delude.

Their media offices aren’t laws unto themselves.

It’s also fairly suspicious that the affair story was killed from British papers. Whether true or not, killing that stort happened around the same time as tiara gate and had to come at a price.

It was discussed on the Oprah interview, in the Netflix series and in the books. It doesn't make it true. If they're going to make these claims, they should have evidence. I know the RF a firm. That's not evidence. After all the misrepresentation, I find it hard to take them at their word.

are a firm

They’re not Scotland Yard or the CIA, I think evidence would be hard.

Ultimately there’s been an enormous division and falling out. The idea that came out of nowhere and has been entirely fabricated seems less unlikely to me.

They’d have to be psychopaths or at the very least both have severe personality disorders/be parhological liars. They’re flawed and egotistical but not disturbed.

• not disturbed, meaning, I don’t think they are so afflicted as to fabricate the entire falling out

I think Meghan is a typical American and speaks in a way that’s cliche’d, romanticised and exatturates, and she’s a typical Hollywood drama queen imo but I don’t think pathologically lying to Oprah when you have a lot to lose is likely.

I just don’t buy they’re a couple of evil full blown liars. That makes no sense.

Who has leaked stories about them? Why?

Ok, @Labradorandshiraz - why tell Oprah that Archie wasn't going to get a title because of his skin colour? That the RF were removing their security? That the RF were racist? I think that amount of dishonesty is troubling.

The royal family are racist either unwittingly or otherwise - they’re an institution built on plundering and enslaving during colonisation and still visit those countries whilst waving downwards from open air vehicles. Upholding that insirutition is a form of racism - it’s basically gas lighting and throwing shade on the impact of slavery colonialism and acting like it didn’t exist or happen.

Archie didn’t get the title of Prince despite the laws being changed to make the Cambridge’s children’s prince and princess. Therefore I don’t see why this is necessarily a lie. This was said during a time they didn’t know how long the QEII reign would be.

The royal family did remove their security. This has been confirmed - they could only get security if they met certain conditions.

* in my strong view

You're very misinformed. Deliberately or otherwise, I'm unsure.

Archie did not become a prince at birth because he was the great grandson of the monarch and therefore not entitled to be a prince. Now that he is the grandson of the monarch, he is a prince.

The 'royal family' do not decide on the provision of security to relative who chose to live on another continent. I'd be amazed if anyone would think they did.

Both of these issues have been discussed extensively, so I'll repeat that I'm unsure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not.

Archie didn’t get the title of Prince despite the laws being changed to make the Cambridge’s children’s prince and princess. Therefore I don’t see why this is necessarily a lie. This was said during a time they didn’t know how long the QEII reign would be.

The letters patent were changed for the Cambridge children prior to George’s birth so that they would all be of equal rank. This was because the rule of male primogeniture was to be ended. If the children were not of equal rank, you would have had the situation, had George been a girl, that she would have been if lesser rank as a child than any younger male siblings, even though she would have eventually inherited the throne. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Sussexes as oo have said

No your mistaken @IcedPurple Kate & William’s children weren’t entitled to titles such as Prince or Princess when they were born as they weren’t the grandchildren of the monarch either. However, laws were changed so that they could be Princess/Prince from birth before the Queen died. This wasn’t however changed for Harry’s children the same as it was Kate & William.

The issue of their child having the title of Prince or Princess had bearing over decisions regarding their security.

On the issue of security when in another continent, the royal family could have privately paid for this to ensure their safety until they found their feet as Prince Charles and now William receive millions in private untaxed income that goes to only their families. They chose not do this.

Given Harry was once threatened by the taliban publicly and outed as having faught there andwhat happened to his Mum, it shouldn’t have been an ultimatum to be a working royal under their conditions or not have security for be and his family.

@smilesy no this is a seperate issue to do with females in royal family and titles.

I am referring to the titles bestowed on royal children at birth regardless of gender. The Cambridge children weren’t entitled to the title of Prince or Princess at birth as Charles wasn’t yet king. This law was changed for the Cambridge children but not Sussexes.

@Labradorandshiraz

The letters patent was changed in 2012 for the prince of wales eldest son.

This was when Meghan was only a twinkle in Harry’s eye.

Kate's and William's children are the children of a future king and one will be a king himself.

Harry's aren't.

This has been explained to you above.

Titles, or the lack thereof, have nothing whatsoever to do with security decisions, which have nothing to do with the royals.

And why should the 'royal family' subsidise Harry's lifestyle choice to live in California? If security was so important to him, he could have lived privately at Frogmore where he'd have had high level round the clock protection.

Choices have consequences.

Yes a year after Kate and Will’s marriage and nothing would have stopped them doing the same for Sussexes so that their children had this option. It makes sense that if the Cambridge titles are fast tracked, the Sussex ones are too.

The decision to not do the same for Meghan and Harry seems in and of itself arbitrary and arguably discriminatory.

Once again.

Kate and William's children are the children of a future monarch and one is a future king himself.

Harry's aren't.

They are not equal in the royal hierarchy.

Do you not understand that? It appears you don't.

@IcedPurple

“Kate's and William's children are the children of a future king and one will be a king himself.

Harry's aren't”

• Neither were Prince Andrew’s but they got Princess titles at birth. They also have parents with high profiles who at the time the decision was made, were senior working royals.

“Titles, or the lack thereof, have nothing whatsoever to do with security decisions, which have nothing to do with the royals” -
the royals Have an abundance of private funds they can spend however they want or give to family especially as a few family members hold the bulk of their wealth, so this is incorrect.

“And why should the 'royal family' subsidise Harry's lifestyle choice to live in California? If security was so important to him, he could have lived privately at Frogmore where he'd have had high level round the clock protection.”

Choices have consequences.

• People are allowed to be free and independent. Harry’s privacy and and normal sense of safety were stripped of him bt no choice of his own and they have the enormous wealth to protect him.