The Markle Debacle

originally posted by: Sheye

like it was stated it will take time and they may not be 100% financially independent for awhile.

How come?.........Harry has £20 million left to him from his mother and a further

£7 million left him by the Queen mother........ Megan must have some small change?

And then

Prince Charles is believed to be 'hurt' by Harry and Meghan's decision to quit as senior royals because he has secretly given them millions to fund their lavish lifestyle and furnish their Windsor home in a show of 'love' for the couple since they married 20 months ago, it was claimed today.
Harry is believed to have asked his 93-year-old grandmother, father and brother to agree to let them keep their royal titles and carry out royal duties for Her Majesty around the globe while living in Canada or the US – and claimed they want 'financial independence' to earn their own money using the Sussex brand.

Hmmm....Trading on his name and titles? That had to be in the mix.

[...]
The insider told the Standard:'The figures quoted on the Sussex website are wrong. He has paid out considerable sums from his private investments and money too. These are not small sums. It should not be a surprise that he is upset by all this given the truth about how he has supported his son.'
However, based on his father's seven-figure donation, the figures simply don't add up. And it means they are claiming their portion of the Sovereign Grant amounts to just £100,000, significantly less than the £2million Harry and Meghan have been estimated to receive

Meghan reportedly told Harry she must step away from the royal family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming his older brother, and according to the newspaper told her husband over Christmas: 'It's not working for me'.

Back to what has already been said *Megan gets what Megan wants*

Cosy Christmas they must have had carving up in more ways than one

Her Majesty is said to want guarantees that Harry and Meghan's business empire built around their Sussex title doesn't damage the royal family. William and Charles are expected to reject the couple's demands for taxpayer-funded police bodyguards while in the UK and reportedly unhappy about the environmental impact of criss-crossing the Atlantic to carry out royal duties

[...]

And there we have it!!!! There's no business like show bisiness.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: Bmused7
I am another person that thinks MM has NPD. In the beginning I followed the story of her engagement and eventual marriage. As the details of the increasing isolation and secrecy of the birth came forth I had an uneasy feeling. I know all too well what a narcissist partner is capable of and I agree with you that if you haven’t lived through the torment and manipulation of being involved with a personality like that it is hard to spot. I feel terrible for Harry and his family.
This marriage WILL end in divorce, and it will take Harry years to recover.

That LONG Christmas break must have been a hellofan indoctrination.

And you can now see why Archie was left behind!! concentration on

the job in hand.

originally posted by: daftpink
This thread has many tones of a b*tch fest. People should think about how the media have made them think. Meghan=bad Kate=good.







The level of outrage the MSM try to invoke is what makes many people unwittingly legitimise the whole concept of a monarchy.

You're being played.

That is a very revealing article... but I don't think it reveals exactly what you suggest it does. I just happened to read that article right before the Daily Mail started publishing the information about the legal lawsuit Meghan filed against the Daily Mail -- especially Mr. Markle testifying, releasing the text messages between them the week before the wedding as he was dealing with a heart attack and heart surgery, Jessica Mulroney trying to run interference before a negative interview was published, and so on.

It also seems that the media has even worse information they would like to publish about Markle, but there are injunctions in place preventing them from doing so.

There is definitely bad blood between Markle and the media. Definitely. And the article you linked would seem to confirm it.

And the info released by Mr. Markle, the Daily Mail, and Meghan's behavior seems to suggest there is good reason for it.

One more thing... while I cannot speak for everyone, I can say that there is also plenty of reason to think poorly of Meghan based on her own words and actions. I have previously listed four things specifically that I find particularly egregious. As well as thinking highly of Catherine for her own words and actions. At least some people can think for themselves, separate the wheat from the chaff, and try to keep things in their proper perspective.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: misfit312

Rumor is that she'll get dual citizenship for Archie and take Harry to the cleaners under US divorce law.

Sounds like something William might have alluded to, which made the

bad feeling between the brothers.

Williams view/judgement is not being clouded by emotion.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: misfit312

Rumor is that she'll get dual citizenship for Archie and take Harry to the cleaners under US divorce law.

It may not be that easy. Take this with a grain of salt, and I don't remember where now, but I read that because Meghan has no established residence in the U.S., that she cannot file for divorce in the USA unless and until she (and/or Harry) actually establish a residence in the U.S..

I really don't know how true this is. Every state has their own divorce laws, so I don't think it's that easy. At one time, Reno was called the "Divorce Capital" because there residency requirements were so short.

I am wondering though how Meghan's residency in Toronto prior to going to Britain will affect Archie's citizenship... Maybe it won't at all. I'm just remembering that part of the debate about Obama's NBC status related to the mother being of age (not a problem for Meghan) and a resident in the U.S. (or was it just Hawaii?) continuously for so many years.

Here's some good news in the midst of all the turmoil:

Prince Harry will NOT fly back to join Meghan in Canada yet as he stays in UK to thrash out Megxit deal - but breaks cover for first time since summit to announce the 'story continues' with next Invictus Games

I hated the thought of Harry letting down his wounded warriors.

So yay Harry!!!

originally posted by: misfit312
a reply to: daftpink

So are you if you think this is just Kate vs Meg.

Never let an opportunity go to waste. So yes I'm sure they are using Meghan's horrible PR to their advantage.

But Meghan shouldn't have lied and leaked the things she did. Not to mention it's out there Meghan herself Paid for at least 3 positive PR stories A DAY to be printed. It's also out there her and Harry were leaking negative stories to the press about Kate and William.

Harry probably learned from Charles who is known to throw both his kids under the bus to the press.

No I don't think that, I thought I explained the point of my post, how the media make up a narrative to further an agenda i.e. legitimising the monarchy. The kate/meghan thing is just one example. The gossipy tell tale nature of most of this thread's posts are another.

The media are playing you in their endeavour to legitimise the monarchy.

Good grief.. why don’t you just take out bets as to when the divorce will happen.

There are so many contradictory statements in this thread as to what the truth is , it’s starting to read like a National Enquirer.

Really.. no offence intended.. but lots of posts contradicting each other.

I will admit I don’t know enough about the behind the scenes facts to form any other opinion than I hope they have a good future. I don’t see anything nefarious about wishing a young family a happy future, despite how they are being supported financially.🤷🏻‍♀️

originally posted by: Sheye

There are so many contradictory statements in this thread as to what the truth is , it’s starting to read like a National Enquirer.

That's what happens when people read trash media and get carried away with the gossip.

originally posted by: Sheye
Good grief.. why don’t you just take out bets as to when the divorce will happen.

That may not be far from the truth, I read somewhere sometime ago

Harry's Friends the ones that were wounded and those who were on

tour with him had said in unison at the news of his impending marriage.

Quote; I'll give it 18 months.

I have to say, thinking about it almost every picture I have seen of Harry

since about September he has looked angry......very angry.

a reply to: eletheia

Sky News (UK) has gotten hold of the Mail on Sunday court docs and given a summary:

Meghan v Mail on Sunday: Key excerpts of Defence claims highlighted

It's consistent with the Daily Mail's report. I have a hunch the Daily Mail is going to drip feed information to the masses, both for maximum readership/profit and just to torment Meghan.

ETA: Oops! I forgot to include this:

Changes to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Website Suggest On-Going Negotiations About Their Security

Now, as the Times first reported, some important language has disappeared from the "finances" section of Sussexroyal.com. Originally, the website explained that Meghan and Harry expected to retain their publicly-funded security, despite pursuing financial independence. Read the original version below:

The provision of armed security by The Metropolitan Police is mandated by the Home Office, a ministerial department of Her Majesty’s Government, responsible for security and law & order. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are classified as internationally protected people which mandates this level of security. As As stated on gov.uk, “No breakdown of security costs is available as disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of these arrangements and affect the security of the individuals protected. It is long established policy not to comment upon the protective security arrangements and their related costs for members of the Royal Family or their residences.”

The updated text on the website now excludes this key claim: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are classified as internationally protected people which mandates this level of security." The concept of "internationally protected people" has a specific legal meaning; it was first introduced in a 1973 United Nations convention, and in the UK in the form of the the 1978 Internationally Protected Persons Act. (The latter, importantly, doesn't necessarily apply to those outside the UK—so the couple would be relying on the UN legislation.)

I wonder if this means they've already had their titles taken away? At least the "Duke" and "Duchess", since the title of "Prince" is Harry's birthright and cannot be taken away. But I'm thinking Harry cannot lose "International Protected Person" status because he will always be a Prince, much like a former president will always be a former president and therefore a target... so maybe just Meghan lost her protected status? And what about Archie and his protection?

Be that as it may, it's never a good idea to get all one's information in the same place... nor is it a good idea to get all one's information from either friends nor enemies. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is usually found from multiple sources.

a reply to: Boadicea

To be honest I didn't get my news from any source, one could say I was winging it. I've checked the news and multiple sources and it seems my hunch was spot on. It's mostly speculation and rumours. As far as I know nothing has went to court so technically their is no court documents other than what's been alleged and submitted to open a case. You do know that potentially jeopardises any future court hearing/dealings.

Harry and Meghan have details of their plan/hopes/wishes at their website. I won't be giving them any clicks though. There is some speculation that they have already lost their titles, but I don't believe that choice is up to them. I believe that the Queen can rescind their titles, and that Parliament could do the same.

Speculation... I believe Harry is out on royal duties today. He's also the head of the Invictus games.

Fair enough. I know what they receive as working members of the royal family and the handouts from his father. I do not know what wealth they have accumulated. However, having acknowledged such, if they are independently wealthy while still expecting handouts from the taxpayers via Dad and Grandma, all the more despicable and pathetic. And do note that your examples are working people doing a job... not the unemployed.

I did say something along the lines of "pennies for peasants" there's good reason for that and I've been vocal enough on ATS for anyone to find my position on benefits and handouts for the upper tiers of society. The Royals however do have their finances sorted well. Nobody knows the wealth of Royalty but if it's the scroungers you're looking to hate on then you should look further than the immediate Royal family, they usually all have duties and fulfill them.... However that family is huge and they're all entitled.

Unless you're aiming to say that only the unemployed should have handouts? Not exactly sure on your meaning.

The only personal statement from Harry and Meghan is at their website, and if you want to read their own words, I'm sure you can find it easy enough. I won't be promoting it.

On the other hand, independent sources for the same information:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle To Still Take 95 Percent of Their Income From Royal Family

Harry and Meghan Are Leaving the Job but Keeping the Salary

From Daddy's estate, well parents... Anyways that's not really anyone's business is it? I know some rich kids who are not financially independent. I know some poor people (too many) who are not financially independent. If it's not tax payers money and they are not in need I couldn't care less where they draw their "wage" from. Entitlement comes from your role in society or lack of.

I definitely agree. I don't have a problem protecting those who need protection, especially those who are or have served their nation in some capacity, including Presidents and Princes. And it seems security is a contentious issue in this matter, with the costs increasing exponentially if they are living in another country, and traveling overseas that much more frequently. And the costs would be imposed as well on the nation where they are residing/being protected. I would think especially because royal protection in Britain is already part of the system. Anywhere and everywhere else, it would have to be created and incorporated into their system.

Agreed. Something needs to be sorted out because at the end of the day people don't want taxes spent on frivolous and pointless things. I used to have the opinion that the Royal family were useless till my local dock got cleaned up and became somewhat operable because the Queen visited.

It's screwed up but that was the only thing that prompted my local council and government to clean the area up despite years of want and need for it. I guess you get your best china out when the Queen visits huh?

I also did the Prince's Trust course when I was a teenager, that's the charity Charles set up, it was a good influence on me and many other kids who were in much worse situations than me. Adults with careers instead of being dead, on drugs or in jail. So I can't say all Royal influence is bad. But that being said I'm neither for or against any of the Royal family in it's current form.

I do love history and freedom though, so naturally their entitlement and role is one I'm not exactly keen on.

a reply to: RAY1990

Agreed. Something needs to be sorted out because at the end of the day people don't want taxes spent on frivolous and pointless things.

I guess it will all be sorted now! I'm not sure this situation has ever presented itself before. I think the (premature) announcement has complicated the issue as well. For example, if given time to work through it, perhaps this move could have been presented to the public as a new position of Roving Ambassadors in service for the Queen to the Commonwealth Nations, working out the kinks in that context. As it is, rightly or wrongly it comes off as very selfish and self-serving on the part of Harry and Meghan.

I used to have the opinion that the Royal family were useless till my local dock got cleaned up and became somewhat operable because the Queen visited. It's screwed up but that was the only thing that prompted my local council and government to clean the area up despite years of want and need for it.

Yeah, it is a crying shame. But that's how it goes. And it's not just royalty. When Phoenix was set to host the Super Bowl years back, there was a stretch along the freeway with lots of junkyards and recycling centers that the city wanted "cleaned up" before the game.... That whole stretch of road is now a completely different beast! Two miles with new shopping centers at either end and a new spring training stadium for the Cubs in between!

I also did the Prince's Trust course when I was a teenager, that's the charity Charles set up, it was a good influence on me and many other kids who were in much worse situations than me. Adults with careers instead of being dead, on drugs or in jail. So I can't say all Royal influence is bad.

That's really awesome, and where the Royal patronages shine. That's where the focus needs to be. I have much respect for the Queen and her life's service -- as she promised -- beginning with her military service in WWII. And I'm sure just like any mother and grandmother, she looks at her progeny at times and has to wonder just what the hell they're thinking!!! I am not much inspired by Charles and his future reign, but I do think Wills and Kate will institute some much needed improvements. I'm pretty impressed with Wills' Earth Shot campaign. It's a shame that Harry and Meghan's announcement has totally overshadowed that. I was also impressed with Kate's involvement with midwifery, including shadowing some midwives as they went about their work. I think they're just getting started, and look forward to their future endeavors.

But that being said I'm neither for or against any of the Royal family in it's current form. I do love history and freedom though, so naturally their entitlement and role is one I'm not exactly keen on.

I understand, and there will always be room for abuse, but I also think the role of the monarchy can be a very valuable one and provide great service to the people. Like the Prince's Trust. But it does need to serve the best interests of the people -- not just first and foremost, but totally and completely. Another benefit is that by separating the monarchy from the politics, it also allows for friendly and favorable relations with foreign nations and dignitaries, which benefits everyone.

Royalty is such an antiquated bunch of crap, and if you believe in it, you can feel free to donate as much of your money to making them feel special and protect their "superior" bloodline.

m.youtube.com...

It their own statement said that they still wanted to take the money that Charles gives them through the duchy of cornwall and they insisted that as they were internationally protected people they should still have their funding paid for which comes out of the public purse, I believe they have now retracted that part on their statement. What the did was essentially put out a list of demands which infuriated the British public and rightfully so.

Their mouthpiece Tom Bradby the journalist and friend came out and said that if the palace mishandled the negotiations they would do a tell all interview with American media that in his words would not be pretty. Implying that there is racism and sexism at the heart of the institution. In my opinion it was blatant blackmail of his 93 year old grandmother infront of her entire nation. They want their cake and to eat it. Financially Independant my arse hence why now the Canadians are up in arms about having to possibly fork out millions for their security.
No matter which side of the fence you sit on they have handled this in such an infantile and disgusting matter that they are now seen as petulant children stamping their feet in an attempt to be given whatever the damn hell they want. Harry will never be respected in this country again. I would put money on it Meghan never comes to Britain again as this is such a toxic and racist country according to the narrative being driven exceptionally hard. She was welcomed with opened arms. Bon voyage you ungrateful sods is all I can say.
a reply to: RAY1990

I could not agree more with what you have written. Maybe i have my tin foil hat on a bit to tight but many have speculated that she was a financially backed trojan horse sent in to destabalize the monarchy. How you can go from having a country adore you to what we are witnessing now in a mere 20 months is something else entirely. Backers are involved 100%

Their new insta video of Harry behind the scenes attending an event today has raised everyone's eyebrows because of the song used in it. The lyrics are a deliberate attempt to incite anger even more in my opinion. a reply to: misfit312

a reply to: eletheiaPublicity stunt to aggrevate the British,trying to portray them as the sensitive to liberal aspect,I'm sure story is about as true as any other story

I called this one right from the start as soon as i saw how her and harry-child treated megan’s father. Harry could have simply gotten on a plane, been a man and resolved that dispute instantly, and mr. markle would have been on board.

But harry wasnt a man, and showed distinctly how the royal-class in Britain is completely without character. The result was obvious - megan’s estrangement from her own father...who harry, the man who took his daughter, never even bothered to meet.

Look past megan to find the failed character in this whole circus and why it unravelled as it did.