Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Hamsterchops

Sardonicat wrote: »

William's wooden doll

Kate will be a great queen, she's beautiful too.

valoren

Take a look at the official 2020 Royal portrait. See Harry or Meghan in it? I only see the current and future monarchs.

They've expressed sentiments that they don't like the media intrusion, that the media bully’s Markle. Surely Harry is not surprised that the tabloids are toxic and his marrying an American mixed race actress was always going rouse attention and was to be a potent source of vitriol for those outlets. Funnily enough the decision they've made (notably without discussing it with the current and future monarch) will result in an increased level of scrutiny and attention on the three of them. His role was always to meet-greet and represent the institution and charitable foundations. It is her role as well. I can only imagine how suffocating it is for her particularly coming from the lifestyle she previously had. Beyond the fairy-tale desires, the role is in actuality quite dull, very repetitive and vocational. She must surely have understood that when marrying into the fold. Harry was obviously bored of it himself and is in need of a renewed sense of purpose. I think this is a case of remorse, of someone who tried to have it her way, who failed and is now trying to have it both ways with a groomed spouse championing the decision. His listless attitude ripe for manipulative isolation. Her reputation with the Royal family, which wasn't great as it was considering the litany of staff turnover, is not getting helped by this but playing victim will come in handy again for her when the inevitable criticisms are made of this decision. At a minimum this should have been discussed with the Queen and Charles but it’s very noteworthy and inflammatory that it wasn't. What was the refrain within months of their marriage? What Megan wants, Megan gets. 50/50 this year but then its 60/40 then 70/30....

weldoninhio

Itssoeasy wrote: »

She can quit if she wants but how can he quit as a senior royal ? In the not to distant future his father will become king and then his brother and nephew.

Can't see the Royals drafting in James Hewitt as King, just to get Harry back.

Shelga

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

What a load of old tosh. I have never seen any as you say 'racist' remarks about her just justified criticism.

She put herself there. If you put yourself there expect criticism it goes with the job as a 'celeb' instead of playing the part of a royal.

As regards you condemning people who criticise her/them. They take millions from the taxpayer every year and cost many millions more in security.........If I was paying for that I would reserve the right to criticise what I like even down to the colour of their socks............simply because 'I' pay for it.............It's my money and 'I' will say what 'I' want.

They don't like it then get out of the job and f*ck off.........Trouble is they will still be taking millions from the tax payer when they do this so the tax payer can continue to say what they like about her/them.

When they dont take or cost the tax payer a penny and all is paid back what they have been given (property etc) then they may have some kind of case in how they are criticised by some.........until they day comes........live with it because you put yourself there nobody else.

Yes but your load of waffle is based on the assumption that the royal family should exist in the first place. I don’t agree. I think it’s perverse to force this life on a baby from day 1.

Saw a tweet that said it’s like the end of the Truman Show, where Truman sees the light, and rides off into the sunset with the one sane woman who was trying to show him that there is another kind of life. Couldn’t agree more!

Sardonicat

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Kate will be a great queen, she's beautiful too.

Why wouldn't she, all she has to do is appear mute by his side and not reveal the slightest hint of a personality. That's her job now and it will be when aher husband becomes monarch. The whole thing is a nonsense.

Dr. Bre

They made sure they got their free wedding first

MikeSoys

cant see how they will be financially independent without cutting back .. ummm how long will it last?

paw patrol

she seems toxic
falls out with her friends , ditches her family , makes her husband give up his mates and now his family.

any critical opinion of her is racist :rolleyes:

Boredstiff666

Shelga wrote: »

Yes but your load of waffle is based on the assumption that the royal family should exist in the first place. I don’t agree. I think it’s perverse to force this life on a baby from day 1.

Saw a tweet that said it’s like the end of the Truman Show, where Truman sees the light, and rides off into the sunset with the one sane woman who was trying to show him that there is another kind of life. Couldn’t agree more!

My Waffle:

The Royal family can be extinguished tomorrow by the people. But at present there is basically very little interest in doing away with them or not paying taxes for their existence. What you think doesnt really matter unless you are a UK resident and tax payer. If you are at present you are in a small minority of people wanting them gone.

When the dynamic duo ride off into your sunset. They will still be having millions from the UK tax payer and millions in security from the UK tax payer. Together with the property they own......from the UK tax payer.

One house, not a very big one but they lavishly spent 2.4 million of UK tax payers cash refurbishing it and as far as I know never lived in it.

I think before they and you complain of criticism from UK people and press, they ought to give it all back........or shut up and take it.

Penn

Good for them. Harry's not going to be King anyway so why not split from the Royal Family, do their own charitable work without the constraints of being an official Royal Family member, and cut the toxic media out of their lives as much as possible. Given how some parts of the media (The Sun and Daily Mail especially) have gone after her, they're doing the right thing by removing themselves from that as much as possible, while still being able to do whatever charity or public work they wish.

They'll live comfortably for the rest of their lives regardless, but this way they have more control over their own lives, and it doesn't really affect the Royal Family in any way. Seems like the best move they could have made.

El Tarangu

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

The tourists see their palaces, from a distance, pretty sure they don't get to have a chat with queenie or anyone else.

The Palace of Versailles has coped quite well without an actual living royal using it for quite some time.

kowloon wrote: »

The royals themselves aren't bringing in the tourists, you don't get to meet them. Versailles gets more visitors than any of the British sites long after they consigned their monarchy to history.

I find this reasoning specious; 1.9 billion people watched Harry and Megan get a married - almost one-third of the world's population. A lot of people like celebrities; royals are like the next-level of celebrity.

Seamai wrote: »

Neither do I, 99.9% of tourists will never see a member of the royal family, both France and Italy get more tourists than the UK and neither have royal families.

Strange correlation; France and Italy also by-and-large cheaper, have way better weather, and much nicer cuisine.

Paddy Cow

Itssoeasy wrote: »

You know they've been just waiting to use that headline since they got married.
How come Kate Middleton didn't/doesn't get the same treatment as Meghan markle seemed to get ?

Kate used to be heavily criticised for being a work shy scrounger, Waitey Katie and having a social climbing mother who sent her to St Andrews to specifically snare William. It was only when Megan came on the scene and the press hated her that Kate suddenly became the best thing since sliced bread.

Paddy Cow

paw patrol wrote: »

she seems toxic
falls out with her friends , ditches her family , makes her husband give up his mates and now his family.

any critical opinion of her is racist :rolleyes:

Her Dad's side of the family are white trash who were more interested in selling her out to the press, than having a relationship with her. Her sister is such a nut job her own kids have disowned her.

Penn

paw patrol wrote: »

she seems toxic
falls out with her friends , ditches her family , makes her husband give up his mates and now his family.

any critical opinion of her is racist :rolleyes:

falls out with her friends
- Some people fall out with friends throughout the course of their lives. That's natural. She still has many friends though and has been seen regularly supporting them. But with the constraints of being a member of the Royal Family, it's far more difficult for her to do so. Even when she went to Wimbledon to support her friend Serena Williams, it was all negative articles bout some guy a few rows ahead trying to get a selfie with her in the background and security moving them way or something. This will give her more freedom to reconnect with friends.

ditches her family
- Her father before her wedding set up staged photo-ops for publicity to make money for himself, and since then he and other members of her family have taken every available opportunity to do interviews b*tching about her. They betrayed her.

makes her husband give up his mates and now his family
- She made him give up his friends? She made him give up his family? He's a Prince in the British Royal Family, if he didn't want to do something he wouldn't have to, and we have no idea how much she or him are driving these decisions. Either way, when you love and marry someone, they (and your children together) must come first. If he feels leaving the Royal Family officially is best for his family, absolutely he should so.


Criticism of Meghan Markle isn't racist by default, however most of the criticism of her since before the wedding has been designed to turn people against her, which has stoked people's racist tendencies (as evident by most of the upvoted comments on Daily Mail articles about her). Criticial opinion of her isn't racist, but it's largely unwarranted as per how Harry & Meghan called out most of the negative media articles bullsh*t about them in their suit against the Daily Mail.

sbsquarepants

pc7 wrote: »

I don’t get this argument, the amount of tourism the royals bring into UK is massive. I would have thought they are well covering their costs.

I very much doubt it.

I'd say the amount of tourism they bring in is negligible anyway. Tourists tend to do touristy things, if you visit London you go see buckingham palace and so on, but that is not the same thing as travelling from Japan or wherever just to see buckingham palace.

If you're in Dublin you go see the storehouse and the zoo, however i'm sure you could count on the fingers of one foot the number of people who actually flew across the world to visit either!

mariaalice

I consider the queen a great woman she is head of the UK biggest tourism organisation and works very hard. The rest I am not sure what they do.

Its a bit selfish of Harry it will land more work on his brother.

lawrencesummers

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I very much doubt it.

I'd say the amount of tourism they bring in is negligible anyway. Tourists tend to do touristy things, if you visit London you go see buckingham palace and so on, but that is not the same thing as travelling from Japan or wherever just to see buckingham palace.

If you're in Dublin you go see the storehouse and the zoo, however i'm sure you could count on the fingers of one foot the number of people who actually flew across the world to visit either!

I gotta agree, the argument that it brings in tourism is bollocks, New York has no royal family but does ok tourism wise, it’s just an excuse given to justify their existence. If you had no royal family members costing the exchequer a load of money you would still have tourism, It’s the places that people visit, not the people, what you would lose is the most overpaid, under-utilised marketing tool for the UK in the foreign visits that the Members of the family make from Time to time.

gmisk

cannotlogin wrote: »

So Meghan convinces Harry to leave the Royal family, while I struggle to convince a man to go for a drink!!!

Harry appears completely smitten by an actress who has fallen of with her family and friends, and now he's doing the same. Princess Andrew must be delighted he's no longer the focus of attention.

Expect divorce within 5 years when she's finished with him.

What makes you think she convinced him?
Her family come across as scumbags the majority have set up stories with the rags etc....no big loss, who says she has fallen out with her friends? And who says Harry has? Was it in the daily mail?! Lol

"Princess" Andrew....

The gutter press in UK has given them a really rough ride since they got married, I say fair play to them.

FrancieBrady

bubbles o hara wrote: »

Are they also giving up their titles?

They registered a trademark 'Royal Sussex' or something like that, I heard last night.

They clearly intend making some capital out of the marque...cynical? Hmmmm

Irish_peppa

I wonder are they busy sending out CV's for some 9 to 5's :P

Sardonicat

mariaalice wrote: »

I consider the queen a great woman she is head of the UK biggest tourism organisation and works very hard. The rest I am not sure what they do.

Its a bit selfish of Harry it will land more work on his brother.

She is the head of State. As a head of State she does what she has to do and has done it well. The working hard bit in relation to waving at people and declaring things open sticks in my craw. That is not hard work. That's the role of of the extended royal family and in no way, shape or form can it be classed as hard work.

w/s/p/c/

Turned on the TV while making breakfast earlier and caught the last 5 mins of the repeat of last night's Tonight show on Virgin Media. They had a video call with some run of the mill snooty Royalist type. He was saying how Harry has been ruined, he was always a jack the lad, enjoyed a few drinks and always had his chest out and he doesn't do that any more. Yeah pal, its called growing up. He's a married man and a father now. It was followed by that d*ckhead Ivan Yeates calling her a charlatan! Typical West Brit talk.

Fair play to them, a grown man making the best decision for himself and his family.

If if found out that my granny plotted the murder of my mother and my uncle was a paedo, I would separate myself from my family too!! :-)

Sardonicat

w/s/p/c/ wrote: »

Turned on the TV while making breakfast earlier and caught the last 5 mins of the repeat of last night's Tonight show on Virgin Media. They had a video call with some run of the mill snooty Royalist type. He was saying how Harry has been ruined, he was always a jack the lad, enjoyed a few drinks and always had his chest out and he doesn't do that any more. Yeah pal, its called growing up. He's a married man and a father now. It was followed by that d*ckhead Ivan Yeates calling her a charlatan! Typical West Brit talk.

Fair play to them, a grown man making the best decision for himself and his family.

If if found out that my granny plotted the murder of my mother and my uncle was a paedo, I would separate myself from my family too!! :-)

Yeah, I was with you til the bit about the Queen plotting to murder his mother. His mother was a manipulative attention seeker who deliberately courted press attention. She had a public fling with Al Fayed in a deliberate attempt to make another man jealous. She died as a result of being in a speeding car that crashed whilst being pursued by the press she deliberately courted to publicise the fling. The phrase 'hung by your own petard' springs to mind. She was far from the innocent victim she tried to portray herself to be. A serial adulterer with married men who never passed up an opportunity to be photographed doing her great deeds of charity (hugging people ) . If you want a toxic female royal there she is right there.

cj maxx

I'm sure auld lizzy is fairly happy Harry has quit. Has anyone mentioned the ( quite obvious) elephant in the room. So it pretty much suits everyone I'm sure this was discussed during talks. The only thing I think ,is that H&M were either so frustrated/ pissed off they just threw a hissy fit before the queen could release a statement

sbsquarepants

w/s/p/c/ wrote: »

If if found out that my granny plotted the murder of my mother and my uncle was a paedo, I would separate myself from my family too!! :-)

Fair points:D:D

w/s/p/c/

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yeah, I was with you til the bit about the Queen plotting to murder his mother. His mother was a manipulative attention seeker who deliberately courted press attention. She had a public fling with Al Fayed in a deliberate attempt to make another man jealous. She died as a result of being in a speeding car that crashed whilst being pursued by the press she deliberately courted to publicise the fling. The phrase 'hung by your own petard' springs to mind. She was far from the innocent victim she tried to portray herself to be. A serial adulterer with married men who never passed up an opportunity to be photographed doing her great deeds of charity (hugging people ) . If you want a toxic female royal there she is right there.

You do realise that comment was tongue in cheek! I am well aware of how Diana died. I am sure if there was any conspiracy that it was a plot against her demise it would have more than likely come out by now.

bnt

Keep in mind that this is all coming after the Prince Andrew scandal and Charles’ talk about downsizing the Royals anyway. After Charles, William & Harry were “the heir and the spare”, but the arrival of William’s sprogs pushed Harry several places down the line of succession. The same thing happened to Anne and Andrew too, and I’m sure the lessons learned there are in Harry’s mind too.

Sardonicat

w/s/p/c/ wrote: »

You do realise that comment was tongue in cheek! I am well aware of how Diana died. I am sure if there was any conspiracy that it was a plot against her demise it would have more than likely come out by now.

Ah OK. Still, I managed to get a rant in about the 'people's princess ' so no harm done.

strandroad

Good for them I'd say. Harry always seemed to be more free spirited and his choice of wife confirms it, he could have a lady if he wanted to but clearly he didn't.

He now has a son and the treatment of royal children is atrocious; if he can protect him some he definitely should. How they made the two boys walk behind their mother's coffin holding it together in front of the entire world was terribly sad, and now little George is already wheeled out with William and Charles to keep promoting the family of cheaters and abusers. What kind of conversations about harbouring Andrew Harry was privy to we can only guess. Diana was no saint but as a 20 year old she didn't stand a chance in her marriage, rotten from day one. Even prince Phillip was a complete and unabashed cad back in the day, cheating on the queen right and left in plain sight, photographs and all.

He is not beholden to them like William is so good luck to him and his family.

B.A._Baracus

Load of balls :pac:
What does it exactly mean? He is minted. He is a royal despite whatever he may say. Even if he loses his money he'll just tap the royal family or his brother / father for some money.

Doesn't mean a thing.