Talks for reconciliation

[LadyJaneGrey18]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14899657/King-Charles-Prince-Harry-aides-meet-London-secret-peace-summit.html

What to make of this??

Spectre - many posters on here put their views forward as clearly and articulately as they can, referring to verifiable evidence. You mostly just attack them personally, constantly asking why they post, why they care etc.

To me it’s very clear why these people care about the matter under discussion. How are you not getting it? It really is a recurring feature of the anti-RF pps that they rarely engage with discussion points and just make personal attacks, parroting the same dumb questions to derail the discussion - so much so that it seems to be a deliberate tactic.

TLDR: posters are clearly telling you why they post and why they ‘care’, so please stop asking them to explain and justify their participation in the discussion - it’s boring!

No offence.

The more I think about this the more I am convinced that Meghan leaked the details of the meeting ; the time , place etc . There is no way she wants to return to the RF ( although happily accepts money, title etc) but presumably knows that Harry is struggling so is playing along with the I- didn’t- say- anything act ( familiar?).
It would be interesting if some investigative journalist could check out Steve Burton’s travel arrangements.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-14902167/Harry-Meghan-frustrated-details-secret-peace-summit-Sussexes-spokesperson-Kings-aide-caught-camera.html

Well i think its fine to ask why someone cares thar a wedding many year ago that cost them as a taxpayer about £1 is something they are still moaning about today. That unless they are the 1% bracket they themselves aren't net contributors in terms of taxes and take more then they give yet are more concerned about that.

Noone has answered that.

Noone has answered that.

Probably because it's not an interesting question compared to 'who leaked the meeting?'

I’m not sure I understand the question!

Do you mean H’s wedding? If so, I didn’t mind paying for it as a taxpayer - just as I didn’t mind paying for William’s. What I minded was Meghan rubbishing it as meaning nothing to them - it was just a spectacle for the peasants, forced on them by the RF. Blatant lies, since it’s well attested that in fact both H&M had pushed hard for an even grander do than the one they got.

Also - how did M think she could get away with claiming the A of Canterbury had actually married them previously? Was she crazy? The A had to publicly deny this ridiculous lie. He must have thought she was bonkers.

I hope that answers your question and puts the matter to rest.

In the days of CND there was a movement of protest about taxpayers’ money being spent on nuclear weapons. Ordinarily law abiding pacifists were willing to go to prison for non-payment of taxes rather than contribute to this expenditure.

I think there is enough strength of feeling about how the Sussexes have betrayed the monarchy for people to question why they should be expected to pay for them.

And I hope they’ve already settled the bill for Harry’s legal costs.

if not…someone needs to be chasing it up!

That’s another headache for Charles if he does want Harry back in any capacity - the RF are always desperate to convince us that they are good value and that they live relatively frugally and don’t waste public money. In the nicest possible way, H+M’s lifestyle and behaviour do not align with that position. Mansions, huge expenditure on clothing, pointless court cases at our expense during a COL crisis, wanting to save mummy’s millions for the children, not a good look.

Let’s also point out the elephant in that comment and the unpalatable reason h and m left in one go too!
whether h and m and their supporters like it or not William and Catherine are on a totally different level, they had a full state wedding because he is going to be king and she is going to be queen.
harry and Meghan are not and never will be as important at this point and even more so as time passes.

On that, there seem to be two main takes on the reason for the meeting on social media:

1. Meghan and Harry need something - be that money, status, a way back to the UK; or
2. The UK Royal family are desperate for Meghan and Harry to return because they need their star power and are miserably failing without it.

I’m sure you can work out which interpretation is coming from which camp!

I’m going to stop falling for that bait now.

Anyway, Harry and Meghan are obviously desperate to be Royal, even just royal adjacent. I suspect that this photo op was a way of keeping that royal association by proxy. They aren’t allowed within touching distance of the palace but they can send their people to be papped with Palace reps.

This has Meghan’s finger prints all over it. She is papped all the time by friendly, pay to play photogs. She is just PR managing her wine launch. ‘Look! We do still have royal access’.

Her followers know this and they are bigging it up because the not insane ones know she needs the royals to stay relevant.

@Spectre8 It’s not just me thinking that, you never actually discuss anything in a reasoned manner, you take any criticism of Meghan as a personal affront to yourself by replying with rage filled posts full of unnecessary expletives, if that isn’t rage then I don’t know what is.

I've never minded that small amounts of my income tax helped pay for either William's or Harry's weddings. I think there's probably a law here which says there must be two witnesses to a wedding, whether it's in a church or in a hotel, so I knew that they couldn't have been married on the lawn three days earlier with the only other person there being the Archbishop. I used the words 'obfuscating' and 'disingenuous' about the Oprah interview, at the time. Since then I have read on these threads the word 'malicious', and I go along with that. I don't think Meghan set out to tell a proper lie about the wedding date, but she was so thoughtless that she offended a large swathe of the British public and was unintentionally rude to the Archbishop, all for sake of a bit of dewey-eyed Disneyness.

My opinion is that there were other parts of that interview where she was more than thoughtless.

This is absolutely going to be the issue for any long term return to the family. Even if the RF are willing to look past the lies, slanders and bullying they’ll never be able to convince H&M to live a less celebrity driven, vapid lifestyle.

If they come back they’ll do exactly what they wanted to do in the first place: milk the family for photo ops and then swan about high society gatherings in badly fitted designers togs like modern days Marie Antoinettes.

I can’t see a world in which the two branches of the family can coexist together anymore.

Yes I agree. That interview was immensely damaging and intentionally so. She may not be the brightest light on the Christmas tree, but she is a skilled manipulator.

ETA that was to @upinaballoon

https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/35828862/harry-charles-reunion-william-royals/

Bit more info:

• talk arranged only two weeks ago (ties in with a Meg going quiet on insta. Something is up)
• Harry possibly meeting with the King in Sept at Balmoral

Just do what I do and scroll past their posts. Not worth reading, same old clapback.

Thanks for that link @AtIusvue

It is understood the face-to-face meeting was held to discuss avoiding media clashes and conflicts around calendar dates.

That actually seems to be the most logical of all the reasons speculated for the meeting.

It is also insinuated it was at the behest of the RF,

Harry is said to have “given his blessing” for the talks involving two of his team plus the King and Queen’s director of communications

Do high level royal sources usually leak to The S*n? I would have thought The Times or Telegraph was more their style.

The only thing that's clear to me is that at least one party to this meeting wanted the public to know about it. Clearly someone on the Sussex side did (despite the 'denials') though whether that was Harry, Meghan or both is unclear.

Just a thought… Charles has been given bad news about his health and this is a last ditch attempt to bring Harry and Charles together for the optics so in the future things are less awkward on the surface at least. Not a nice thought, but the way this is being done makes me wonder. Either that or C is prepared to attend Invictus to appease H but needs to pave the way. I don’t think H will ever be brought back into the fold properly. He will certainly never be a working Royal. I can’t see him going to any family events apart from funerals again. However perhaps C just wants to smooth things down on the surface to avoid more embarrassing interviews and statements from H because he’s an increasingly loose cannon.

But surely if the meeting is simply about avoiding calendar conflicts that could have been done via Zoom or a phone call? Do you really need two people to fly across 8 time zones to discuss a rather mundane matter?

Then again, if the meeting had been about something highly sensitive, I can't see how it would have been done in public place, especially when a photographer just happened to be there.

Neil Sean is reporting that this meeting was about money. Harry wants access to trust funds that he believes his mother and grandmother set up for him and he wants the funds released. Who knows if this is true but IMO, it would make sense and rings true.

The Sussex side leaked it for sure, maybe trying to downplay it now. Although I could see how a face to face for a strategy on coordinating their calendars would be worthwhile. What doesn't make sense is why (if) the meeting was held in a social space, Harry's two employees were the only ones with briefcases, the RF guy was arms swinging.

""It is understood the face-to-face meeting was held to discuss avoiding media clashes and conflicts around calendar dates."

and the result was to leak at the time Catherine was in the spotlight. The solution of avoiding calendar dates is not to share calendar information. It would also be stupidity for the royal family as it gives the impression that Harry and Meghan have the power to create conflicts. That they are their equals.

Why on earth do the palace need to coordinate diaries with Harry who basically hardly does anything and Meghan who flogs jam on Instagram? Let alone fly across the Atlantic to do it.