Prince Harry wants to raise Archie as a ‘private citizen’ & ‘shield him’ from the public eye

Prince Harry visit to Oxford

Here are some photos of Prince Harry making a visit to Oxford Children’s Hospital today. This event surprised me, especially since he confirmed yesterday that he would be traveling to Rome next week for a charity polo match. As I said earlier, the British media would attack Harry no matter what, especially about “paternity leave,” but I do find it weird that in the first weeks of baby Archie’s life, Harry is keeping up some kind of public schedule. During the visit to the children’s hospital, Harry spent time with some kids who are dealing with cancer, and he spoke to lots of parents. He told one mother that he’s “still getting used to the idea that he’s a parent himself.”

Over the weekend, the Sunday Times of London – the same outlet which broke the “William wants to exile the Sussexes to Africa” story – had a story about how Harry is insisting that they will raise Archie as a “private citizen,” shielding him from the public eye:

Don’t expect Archie to come out of his bunker anytime soon. Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, reportedly think of their new son as a “private citizen” and plan to “shield him” from the public eye.

The Sunday Times of London, citing sources close to the family, speculated that Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, the youngest member of the royal family, may be kept away from crowds of admirers — and will show up at only “big family occasions with his parents.” Proud dad Prince Harry has said he believes that combining private life with an official royal role requires a “tricky balancing act.”

A friend of Harry has said that privacy was more precious to the prince “than to almost any other member of the royal family,’’ the newspaper reported.

[From Page Six]

I mean… I’m sure Harry feels that way. But does Meghan? I feel like Meghan has a better handle on what it really means to have a normal life versus a royal life, and she can see the costs and benefits with both. Harry and William are very similar in that one way, the way they fetishize a certain “normal life” which they’ll never have because princehood was forced upon them. Their idea of a normal, private life involves gobs of money and tons of privilege. Yeah… so, I kind of wonder about all of this. I still maintain that we’ll be hearing much more in the weeks and months to come about all of this.

Prince Harry visit to Oxford

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

225 Responses to “Prince Harry wants to raise Archie as a ‘private citizen’ & ‘shield him’ from the public eye”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Who ARE These People? says:

    Maybe they view “normal” as being normal in day-to-day routines and habits, whereas the rest of us view “normal” as not being rich or titled/entitled.

    • Toot says:

      Well Archie isn’t titled. His parents are so that’s why they have to ‘work’ and be seen.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Then he falls into the other 2 categories – rich and entitled in the sense of great privilege.

      • Toot says:

        Ok and?

        His family’s rich can’t help who he was born to.There’s no guarantee he’ll be entitled. His mother will be there to help guide him, and she knows what normal life is and the concept of working for a living.

      • Sunnee says:

        Let’s look at the sentence, shall we? “The Sunday times CITED sources close to the family and SPECULATED.. “ . Hmmm so it’s not him speaking it’s someone else. And the Sunday Times is “speculating” or interpreting the meaning of what the cited source said. Can we please call this for what it is .. third hand information? Honestly what this article is , is a load of tripe.
        Likely they want is what every parent wants… their child to be safe and happy. Little Archie has no role yet, but he will be a prince (HRH) once his Grampa becomes King. From what we know of his parents he will grow up to be a giver and a humanitarian. I really can’t see it going any other way.
        As yet he is drinking milk and sleeping, and growing. Based on the SussexRoyal insta post, they will show Archie when they feel it appropriate. In their position I would do the same.

      • violet says:

        He will inherit Harry’s titles as an adult.

      • Megan says:

        Wrong thread

    • Kylie says:

      They view being normal as living the way their rich friends do, not in having a job because you need one to survive way of normal. Diana was like that too. Their concept of normal does not reflect reality.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        He’ll never be of normal status, Harry and William can’t get around that no matter how hard they try. They must have always felt that invisible wall between them and … commoners, right? And their sense of how “commoners” live is not drawn on first-hand experience.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If Harry really wants to give Archie a normal life, the first thing he should do to realize this normal life for Archie is to QUIT TALKING ABOUT IT. IMHO Harry wants to have the best of both worlds. Not only is it not possible, it is not really fair to the citizens of the UK.

      • BlueOrange says:

        This is true. Diana is put on a pedestal but she too fetishised ‘normal’. To them, I think normal is middle class (like the Middletons) but they’re never going to be that. It reminds me of that Pulp song ‘Common People’.

        Also I find it really interesting that Harry, who is as normal obsessed as his brother, chose to marry a woman who actively sort out fame and fortune and a life in the public eye. No shade intended at all towards Meghan for that because women can and should climb that ladder but nobody is going to buy the idea that she now wants no fame or attention.

      • Kendra says:

        The Queen’s cousins haves lived pretty normal life despite doing some royal work, and that the position Archie will eventually have.

    • Megan says:

      Harry and William both come across as ungrateful and entitled when they complain about how all they really wanted was a normal life. They were born into one of the most privileged roles in the world. Show a little gratitude.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        They also had to deal with seeing how their mother was treated by the press and having to mourn her loss publicly. Which Harry has said on more than one occasion left him scarred. We all get that they are privileged but it’s naive to think that that privilege doesn’t come with a cost.

      • Anastasia says:

        And honestly? The Queen has never in her entire life bitched about the responsibilities of being a royal. She took on that mantle when she was quite young and has always taken it very seriously.

      • Megan says:

        Huh, I don’t recall saying privilege immunized them from the same loss and suffering the rest of us go through. But, sure, read into what you want.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “The Queen has never in her entire life bitched about the responsibilities of being a royal.” So true as she learned from the Queen Mum “never complain and never explain”.

        Bill & Harry really need to STFU and start acting like the born royals they are and were raised to be.

        ETA: Charles has really never bitched too much either about the responsibilities of being a royal.

      • Casey20 says:

        The Queen grew up in a different era…..things have changed significantly. She had all the privacy she wanted in her youth. No one made her walk behind the coffin of her mother who died unexpectedly. The Brits have been rabid in their demands of Harry and Meghan. I don’t blame Harry from protecting his family from the crazy Brits!

      • Redgrl says:

        @megan & &baytampabay – exactly. If Archie is to be a private citizen, then he’d best be prepared to work for a living – work full time, that is, not the show-up-a-few-hours and dabble in charity work like William and Harry seem to think is work. Their fetishized view of “normal” is offensive and it must be worse for Brits in this era of economic uncertainty. The Queen just got on with it and didn’t – and doesn’t – complain. I’ve said it before and will
        say it again – when the Queen passes Canada needs to sever ties with the rest of them.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think many Commonwealth countries will be walking hand-in-hand with Canada through the EXIT door.

      • Franke says:

        The Queens life had its own difficulties, including being trotted out publicly as a symbol of royalty during the abdication crisis and WWII. She, too, lost her father as a young woman and had to assume immediate responsibilty as monarch. Yes, Harry suffered a grievous loss at a young age, but he is not the only royal to have to present a public image during difficult times.

        That said, he wants a private life for his kid, not what we think of as normal. Totally understandable and definitely achievable. It’s also his choice, his and Meghan’s – they alone get a say.

      • BlueOrange says:

        @Redgrl Things have indeed changed but why the personal attack on Brits describing them as crazy and rabid? That is offensive and untrue. Some of the press may have behaved like that and Royals throughout history have received harsh and unfair press. The general British population don’t care.

      • Redgrl says:

        @blueorange – nowhere in my comment do I describe Brits as crazy and rabid. Please re-read. You are attributing the words of the post above mine by @casey20 to me. Please be more careful.

      • insertpunhere says:

        I mean, if my mother had died as a result of insatiable media attention, I think I’d probably be team leave me alone too.

        What should they be grateful for? I know they have money and access to better education/medical care/etc., but it comes at an immense cost, and it isn’t like they chose this life. I have a lot more sympathy for them then I do for actors/models/etc. who complain about the constant media attention.

      • Megan says:

        @insert – their mother died due to drunk driving and not wearing a seat belt.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @insertpunhere, Diana died because she was not wearing a seat-belt. From all I have read, if Diana had “buckled-Up” she would have sustained minimal injury.

      • Agenbiter says:

        @Franke, YES!!
        Harry said he wants a ‘private’ life for Archie, which is feasible. People are criticizing him as if he said he wants a ‘normal’ life for his kid, which of course would never be the case.

      • Julia says:

        @megan, @baytampabay, Well it was a perfect storm. If there hadn’t been the media attention the drunk driver wouldn’t have been driving at a speed he couldn’t control. And the paparazzi did take photos of her while she was lying there injured next to Dodi’s dead body. So hating on the media’s behaviour seems pretty reasonable.

      • Salvation says:

        It has been reported how the queen was really mad at her uncle for abdicating, which meant she was thrown into the ring as a future monarch, something she had never envisioned not wanted. How old are people that claim how the queen never expressed this or that emotion? If Harry wants to raise his son a certain way, it’s her s son. He chooses how he wants to raise him, whether people approve or not. And it’s so amusing to me that Americans yelled, gagged, yelled the loudest and expressed the utmost disgust at the Sussexes naming their child Archie, they are yelling the loudest about how Harry should or shouldn’t raise his kids, Americans always know best about what normal means for Harry and William, and yet, same Americans are the quickest to knock “the Brits” for cyber bullying duchess Meghan, like c’mon…🤔🤔

      • Salvation says:

        I get so pissed when people claim that they know for a fact that the only reason Diana died in that accident was because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and because the driver was drunk!! How do you know for sure these were the only reasons Diana died? Maybe there wouldn’t have been an accident if her car wasn’t being chased by the paparazzi!! Maybe if the paparazzi had helped get Diana our of that wreck instead of all just taking pictures of her bleeding and dying in the back seat of that vehicle, maybe she would have lived!! There are more than one factor that contributed to Diana’s death and totally exonarating the paparazzi while all blame is piled upon the victims is just absurd. Harry has every right to blame the press for his mother’s death, that’s how he feels, it’s his emotions, his only. No one has the right to tell him otherwise. Just because people didn’t approve of Diana and some of her behaviour doesn’t negate the fact that the media contributed to the crash in which Diana was killed, sheeesh.

    • Olenna says:

      Maybe this story is true, but who are these sources the article claims are talking to the press? Lot of speculation about what Harry might have said, but I don’t think we really know what he wants or plans for his child.

    • Shane says:

      Harry needs to get a grip. He’s royalty. He married an American actress everyone has an opinion about, and they have a kid who is in line to the throne. That kid isn’t a private citizen, and Harry is just being obstinate and difficult. This is the hand in life you’ve been dealt. Accept it and move on. This constant bellyaching about attention and wanting privacy when he’s born in the spotlight and then he further shines that spotlight on himself by marrying a woman who draws a lot of attention, all the while complaining that he wants privacy and normalcy? What?? You can’t have both.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Shane, thank you for stating in a very “straight” USA manner what I have been thinking but afraid to post. The choice harry made in Meghan as his wife did not set him up to have any type of “normal” life. No matter what people want to believe, this child is not and never will be a private citizen as the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are not private citizens. Archie will eventually have an HRH in front of his name and 60 years down the road he will be in the same position as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are now. Harry just needs to STFU and get on with raising, to the best of his ability, a well adjusted child who eventually be officially Royal.

      • sid says:

        BayTampaBay, you think Archie will be a working royal in the way the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are? I don’t see that happening at all, especially considering Charles’s alleged plans for a slimmed down monarchy. At this point I suspect that once Charles ascends, Harry and Meghan will ask for Archie not to have the HRH Prince styling and instead will ask that he be styled as Lord, as Edward and Sophie did for their kids. And I think the only reason they would even agree to “Lord” instead of sticking with “Master” is because he will inherit the Dukedom when Harry passes away. I believe they are modeling themselves after Anne and Edward with regard to the kids.

      • Surly Gale says:

        You are getting hot, Shane, over something that is being speculated upon by an unnamed source. How is Harry being obstinate and difficult about something he has never said/done, as yet? It’s speculation, not fact.

        I do agree they need to find another word than normal, because they are not the norm for 99% of the world, which, thankfully, DoS knows. She knows exactly how the ‘normal’ world works, and they are not that. So, please everyone, unknot your panties and breathe. We will know what we know when we know it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @sid, Yes, I believe that Archie will be a working royal like Kent & Gloucester if the British Monarchy survives after the passing of QEII.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Archie will not be a working royal, the slimdown plan is mainline only. This means Charles, Camilla, W&K, H&M. Next generation it means W&K, H&M, W&K kids NOT any of Harry or Meghan kids. 3200 engagements a year, 500-600 engagements per royal, all sorted.

      • Megan says:

        I think when they say “normal” childhood, they really mean “happy” childhood.

      • Johnna Shapiro says:

        Guy can’t catch a break. On the one hand are the haters who constantly say H&M (and now Archie) are irrelevant because he Won’t Be King Someday and the spotlight on him will fade, and now from the other side people are telling him to STFU and deal with the spotlight. *smh*

  2. Toot says:

    I understand Harry’s thinking and Meghan more than likely agrees.

    Archie is 7th in line and isn’t automatically going to be a ‘working’ royal like his cousins. This way he has a choice when he’s older.

  3. Sid says:

    I said it elsewhere, but I think he wants his kids to end up like Anne’s kids where you really don’t see them outside of official full family events and occasionally one of Zara’s competitions.

    • Liz says:

      I agree. And suspect he’s talked to Anne about how she did it – balancing her life as a working royal while ensuring that her kids and grandkids were and are allowed to live their own (very wealthy & privileged) lives.

    • L84Tea says:

      Exactly. Anne’s kids have lived very nice, relatively private lives while still enjoying the perks of royal life. No reason why Archie can’t do the same.

    • notasugarhere says:

      And like Edward and Sophie’s kids, Louise and James, who were kept out of public view for years. Aside from a couple of obsessed Sophie haters, nobody cared.

      • sid says:

        Edward and Sophie really are a good comparison, especially since they also have a son that will inherit titles like Archie. I am understanding more and more why they went with Lord and Lady. Anne had it really easy in that sense, as there is no way for her to pass anything down.

    • AryasMum says:

      But Peter and Zara never had titles, and their father didn’t have one. Harry is a duke and it’s apparently a hereditary title. Archie will be a duke one day.

    • PrincessK says:

      Lol! Zara Tindall and her family are in the news all the time and it’s deliberate.

  4. Wendy says:

    Who could blame him? It isn’t like the press have bent over backwards to give his wife any space.

    I feel like the 24 hour news cycle and social media being instantly accessible has given rise to the press seizing on small details, no matter how accurate, and rehashing insignificant events over and over to generate traffic that is just feels relentless. Imagine if Phillip or Margaret’s lives were documented during today’s news cycle….or the War of the Wales.

    • MissyS. says:

      I also think about how horrible social media will be for the Cambridge children when they grow up. Imagine the insane amount of people who will be recording their every move on phones and tablets. How will they be protected from bloggers sneaking into their parties and events and reporting back to Twitter? They won’t be able to hide at all.

      • celialarson12 says:

        I hope by the time the Cambridge children grow up , royal reportes will be obselete. When I imagine the lies many of us have believed in the last couple of years!!!! That RRs can write stories about a baby shower that has not happened with conversations included, location, guests attending…….

  5. Monicack says:

    Somewhere Andrew is screaming into the void.

  6. Seraphina says:

    I agree that Meghan has a better grasp of what normal means. But @Who Are these people, had a good thought that maybe they mean more day to day routines. With stream lining the monarchy it makes sense and better set boundaries now then 20 years from now.

  7. Bunny says:

    I will never forget William and Harry taking that long, slow walk behind their mother’s funeral cortage. It was heartbreaking. Harry, especially, looked crushed and lost.

    I imagine that his reasons for wanting to protect and shelter his family are rooted in that day.

    • lanne says:

      It was really shitty that they had to do that. It’s even shittier that they had to do that for the public’s benefit and not their own. They were better off grieving in Balmoral in privacy, but the great public outcry demanded their presence.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The whole point of a constitutional monarchy is for the benefit of the public.

      • Megan says:

        If the BRF had acknowledged the depth of the public’s grief in a timely fashion, those poor boys would have been in a car where they belonged.

      • lanne says:

        constitutional monarchies shouldn’t require the grief of children for performative satisfaction

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Megan, You are so correct.

      • notasugarhere says:

        HM kept the boys at Balmoral, out of public sight, while the “loving public” was baying for the boys to be seen in public. She took loads of criticism for that, when all she was doing was protecting them from the freakish public.

      • CoffeeCoffeeCoffee says:

        Ianne, so well said about performative satisfaction!

      • Casey20 says:

        There is something wrong when the British people believe that their needs should come before the needs of children who had just lost a beloved mother in a tragic car accident….it’s just delusional.

      • Olenna says:

        I agree, notasugarhere, and I think the people’s criticism of TQ for trying to protect her grandsons was appalling. Sadly, this is what happens in a country when generation after generation of citizens uphold a monarchy and tolerate a class system that leaves them with little else but a sense of entitlement to the monarchy’s private lives and expectations of emotional sacrifice all in the name of appearances.

      • Tina says:

        Y’all, there’s more social mobility in the UK than in the US.

    • kerwood says:

      I remember when Charles brought the boys out to look at the flowers left outside Buckingham Palace. The crowds of people waiting outside reached out their hands, grabbing at the boys like they were animals at a petting zoo instead of CHILDREN mourning their mother. That sight made me physically ill. Harry doesn’t owe ‘the public’ his child’s life. He has enough money of his own that Archie will live a VERY comfortable life as a private citizen.

      • AryasMum says:

        If Archie inherits Harry’s title, is he still a private citizen?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, Archie is a private citizen whether he has a title or not.

      • celialarson12 says:

        From what I have seen of Beatrice and Eugene it seems very clear that these are girls that do not need to work for a living, though it would have been better if they had been brought up to find serious careers. Eugene seems to be doing fine, but Beatrice seems to be struggling and worse for her is the fact that she to prefers the company of the supper rich……google the company she keeps when in the US, find her swaning around in some billionaire`s yatch in Europe. I do not see Beatrice marrying a Jack…

      • celialarson12 says:

        From what I have seen of Beatrice and Eugene it seems very clear that these are girls that do not need to work for a living, though it would have been better if they had been brought up to find serious careers. Eugene seems to be doing fine, but Beatrice seems to be struggling and worse for her is the fact that she seems to prefer the company of the super super rich……google the company she keeps when in the US, find her swaning around in some billionaire`s yatch in Europe. I do not see Beatrice marrying a Jack…

    • Surly Gale says:

      @Megan – Oh, I do SO agree

  8. tempest prognosticator says:

    Who is paying for Archie’s “normal” life. Not meant as a snarky question, just curious about how this works.

    • Heather says:

      Right now he is provided for by his parents, so whatever his parents “earn” goes to his support, like most minors. I think, and I could be wrong, the difference will be apparent when he is an adult and is no longer provided an allowance from the royal purse and has to get his own job (but don’t cry for him yet, he’ll still be well connected and probably well educated, he won’t be a dishwasher).

      • Liz says:

        And Harry is wealthy in his own right – Diana left him a fairly substantial trust fund. His kids may not be able to live in Kennsington Palace as adults, but they will certainly be able to afford a very nice townhouse in that neighborhood.

      • Tina says:

        No – Diana left them around £10m each. That is the cost of a typical townhouse in Kensington. They could have nice lives, but nowhere near what they have now.

      • Anastasia says:

        @Tina Oh no, JUST 10 million pounds? Poor things.

      • Tina says:

        @Anastasia, I’d certainly take it! But the people who say, oh well Harry and Meghan are wealthy in their own right are not understanding the difference in lifestyle between having a total fortune of £10-15m and having millions in income from the Duchy or the Sovereign Grant coming in every year.

      • Himmiefan says:

        Didn’t the Queen Mother leave Harry several million?

      • Tina says:

        Yes, she left Harry more of the £14m than William. But even if Harry’s capital was as much as £20m and he has spent nothing of it, it’s not possible to live the lifestyle that Harry and Meghan do now on the income from that.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Don’t forget, the boys got an inheritance from Diana *and* the QM (Harry getting a bit more from Diana, as she said William will have the Duchy of Cornwall as PoW to provide for him). It would have been invested quite wisely, and with interest from the last 25 yrs or so, would be a *very* nicely grown nest egg.

      • violet says:

        @Anastasia, that money has been invested for years. I’m sure it’s multiples several times by now. It’s pretty well known that the princes (both William and Harry) never pay for anything out of their own pocket.

      • Tina says:

        @violet, it will have been conservatively invested. You need a Maurice Tempelsman (Jackie Kennedy’s companion who made a ton of money from her relatively small Onassis settlement), and it would be very unlikely that Charles would have hired anyone that comfortable with risk to manage Harry’s money.

    • notasugarhere says:

      No one screamed for Sophie and Edward’s blood about keeping their children out of the public eye, while the parents are supported by the Sovereign Grant. This is about haters and tabloids making a fuss because it is Harry and Meghan, not about logic or precedent.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Deleted comment.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Harry was always more popular than Edward & Sophie and always will be. Marrying Meghan put both of them, and now Archie, in the glare of the never ending spotlight. IMHO, public interest, both positive and negative, is not going to die down in the next 20 years.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And none of that matters. Their son is not a public figure, the public has no right to this child. He will not be working royal, he is a private citizen with public figure parents.

    • violet says:

      Harry’s trust fund and future inheritance from Charles and others.

    • PrincessK says:

      Archie can never have a normal life. Could he work as a doctor, lawyer, engineer, business tycoon? Not possible at all. Opportunities are limited to areas where he can circulate with his own type who also value discretion.

      So Archie might find work in the horse racing world, or certain areas of the arts, interior design, or he might even do a couple of days work a week in an art gallery where they can just pay him a peppercorn salary.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Archie could make the UK armed services a career as his father and Uncle Andrew did.

      • PrincessK says:

        A career in the armed services could only last a few years, and having a royal in the armed forces is often quite problematic.

  9. Gina says:

    I am a big fan of Harry and Meghan. They seem like a sweet couple who want to use their position to help others. BUT when people like that talk about wanting a “normal” life, what they really mean is they want to be like their uber-rich pals who can just hang 24/7 with no royal duties to distract them from the never-ending vacation. They certainly don’t mean normal like us (job, mortgage, household chores). Think about it: to have all the money, all the perks. and still be able to walk down the street without being recognized–THAT is the best of both worlds and THAT is what Harry and Meghan want for Archie.

    PS: love your site, visit it everyday!

    • Peg says:

      I disagree with you, Meghan has always worked, and before maternity leave was working her ass off.
      Being wealthy don’t stop them from doing household chores, unless they choose to.
      Maybe a normal life would be like going out to dinner without cameras in your face, someone digging through your rubbish.
      Why do people think because someone is wealthy that their life is great?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I do not think that Megs & Harry want a “normal” life for themselves but want a “normal” life for Archie Polo. If Megs really wanted a “normal” life, she would never have married Harry. (See Chelsy & Cressy)

      • violet says:

        “Why do people think because someone is wealthy that their life is great?”

        Because it’s always better to have money than not? How is this a question?

        No money doesn’t protect you from every problem that life can throw but it’s always better to have it than not. Compare a rich person with health problems to a poor person with the same health problems. Who would you rather be?

      • AryasMum says:

        In the U.S., health problems require money. No question there.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      The language of ‘normality’ is so awkward and misleading, in this context and many others, too.

      My guess is that when these princes say “normal” they actually mean “typical” in some kind of privileged but non-titled upper-class sense, but in their upbringing, the line was sharply drawn between ‘royal’ and ‘non-royal/commoner’ and it’s 2019 and they can’t say they want their kids to live like ‘commoners’ because that’s ridiculous and condescending, and probably they wouldn’t want their kids to be as vulnerable as ‘commoners’ actually are, so they use ‘normal’ instead.

      You can’t live on both sides of the line though in a society that has royals. The distinction is not ‘royal’ versus ‘normal.’ It’s ‘royal’ versus ‘non-royal.’ Their kids are royal, titles aside, but they can grow up to lead lives that are more typical of non-royal people (no palaces, no retinue, and hopefully more education to become self-supporting).

      If I were royal (HA HA HA HA HA), I wouldn’t use the word “normal” because it would only highlight that my status was abnormal. Or even that my life was ‘abnormal.’ When in fact a royal life is entirely normal for a person in the royal family, but having the status as a royal is what’s outdated and costly.

      Sorry for thinking it through while I write!

    • Harpersghost says:

      Let’s give Harry some bit of credit.

      His adult life so far has not been as someone who would relish being on vacation 24/7. This is the man who fought for the right to serve in the Army in Afghanistan (not a vacation by any means). And he only gave that up early because the press leaked it.

      That experience has apparently led him to start the Invictus Games, which he has not been merely a figurehead for, but someone really running it.

      I think “normal” life for him would be a position where the press wasn’t reporting on every. single. bit. of. BS of his family. I think he’d lead a very happy life where he’d show up to do conservation work in Africa, or to demonstrate the Invictus Games, and then fade back into the background until the next public event.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Harry’s idea of “normal” is Edward van Cutsem and Thomas van Straubenzee. I would not call the life of Edward and Thomas the least bit normal in terms of what I think of normal being.

    • entine says:

      Don’t be resentful,that’s their normal. I live in a 3rd world country, and there are glaring differences. My brother works at a private school and the kids/teens there have no clue how much their Prada shoes and fancy eyeglasses cost in relation of an average salary.
      It’s unfair, but it is their normal. I bet the closer relatives of the royals are so well connected that they still will earn very well, or if they have companies, will get good contracts due to- be well connected- . Using their connections like that associate of the Duchess of Wessex did, now that was wrong, but I think that family connections/private school friendships are used everywhere. It is not right, but how can one stop it?

      • olive says:

        exactly, everyone has their own definition of what is “normal” and that will change from person to person. there’s no point in debating what is “normal” as it is different to everyone.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Meaning he wants his children, who will never be working royals, to be left alone. Like Peter and Zara were left alone. Like Louise and James were left alone. It isn’t difficult to understand unless you deliberately do not want to understand.

      • windyriver says:


        Question – didn’t this whole “normal” idea start with Diana? Don’t remember details now, but seem to recollect that as a buzzword around her when the boys were small, places she took them, etc. Not a surprise if they picked up the concept from her, at least the way they talked about it when they were younger – and not surprised the press is going that way either…

      • notasugarhere says:

        That idea was twisted after Diana’s death. She never raised them with the idea of having a non-royal life. She was the one taking them to homeless shelters and helping to teach them the requirements of their role as working royals. What she wanted them to have that was “normal” was going to the corner shop and buy sweets or going to amusement parks with their friends – things Charles never did as a child.

      • PrincessK says:

        Peter, Zara, Louise and James are not left alone. Zara actively seeks publicity, and the press are always on the lookout for salacious gossip about the others.

    • violet says:

      “BUT when people like that talk about wanting a “normal” life, what they really mean is they want to be like their uber-rich pals who can just hang 24/7 with no royal duties to distract them from the never-ending vacation. They certainly don’t mean normal like us (job, mortgage, household chores).”

      What’s wrong with this though? You say it like it’s a bad thing to live this way. Lots of rich people do. Rich people have always used their money to get out of doing unpleasant things (like working or household chores).

  10. Susannah says:

    I think there’s a difference though, Harry was in the direct line of succession growing up but Archie’s not. The burden on Harry was so much different than Archie, who’s a lot luckier. A private citizen that’s royalty adjacent seems like the best of both worlds to me. Archie still has all the perks of being royal: connections, money, Christmases at Sandringham, etc. but can still chose his own life path.
    He also won’t have to deal with King William one day holding the purse strings as he won’t be a working member of the royal family. Not having to deal William seems like a great reason to be a private citizen!

  11. Liz says:

    I suspect he sees “normal” as how his Phillips cousins were raised – extraordinarily wealthy, but without titles and without being put into the public eye on a regular basis. Most of the rest of the world sees “normal” as having a job, worrying about paying bills, etc.

    He’s probably talked to Anne about how she pulled it off. Her kids and grandkids have something as close to a “normal” life as he knows. He’s willing to be a working royal, similar to Anne, but wants his kids out of that life, like Anne’s kids. They are seen periodically at things like Ascot and the Christmas walk, but their everyday life is outside of the public eye.

    • ShazBot says:

      Exactly this. I totally agree.

    • Molly says:

      Totally. As children, Will and Harry were paraded around constantly. Their first day of nursery school looked like Mark Zuckerberg getting interviewed by congress. They were/are a public commodity. The public demanded access to them as children, and Harry doesn’t want the same for his kid. Can’t blame him one tiny bit. If Anne can pull it off, so can he.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I do not think Harry will be able to pull it off because Harry is more popular (positive & negative) than Anne, Princess Royal ever was. Harry & Anne’s circumstances are NOT the same.

      • ShazBot says:

        But popularity has nothing to do with their actual role in the royal family. Harry may be popular, but that doesn’t mean his kids have to be working royals.

        Their circumstances are actually pretty identical – Anne’s may have even been worse. Her mom was actually Queen when she had kids, whereas Harry is still just the second son of the Heir. Anne was 4th in line when Peter was born. Harry is 6th right now.

    • YankLynn says:

      Liz, yes I think that’s what Harry is planning for his child(ren). When they announced Archie’s name and lack of title I immediately thought of the Tindall children and that Harry and Meghan might be modeling Zara’s balance of public/private.

  12. Tuille says:

    Harry & Will were subjected as kids to more attention, scrutiny, & publicity that any other royals, ever. Harry hated it, and now he & his child(ren), are far enough down the line of succession that he’ll do everything possible to avoid continuing that pattern.
    Anne & Edward have done well keeping their kids away from the spotlight. Zara gets some attention as an athlete & because she married a pro athlete. The publicity hounds in the family are Randy Andy & his girls, Bea more than Euge.
    With a couple of probable future PoWs, the Cambridges will still get lots of attention.

  13. OriginalLala says:

    I love when Royals romanticise and fetishise what a “normal” life is – it’s all very Marie-Antoinette dressing up as a milkmaid and pretending to be a peasant at the Versailles Hameau.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Yup, it would be helpful to them to stop using that word and start finding better ways to express their (likely muddled and wistful and unrealistic) thoughts.

  14. JaneDoesWork says:

    I mean Archie is never going to be “normal” in a middle class sense of the word. He’ll have a life somewhat similar to Harry’s super wealthy friends in the UK who mostly seem to have work of some kind but certainly not a 9-5 job where they have to worry about their income. Who knows, maybe Archie will move to America to get away from the awful British press. I still agree though that if he’s not going to be a working royal (and Charles slimmed down monarchy ensures he will not) then its best that he not have a title.

  15. Mere says:

    I’m American and am confused by where the money comes from. If Anne (and the Queen’s other siblings) has enough money for her children to live lives of luxury, won’t the same be true of Harry and his children? Or did Anne have access to more money for some reason?

    • entine says:

      I know that diana had her own money from either family inheritance and from the divorce, and left Harry more money than to William, as Harry was not the heir. I think that the Royal family has their own money, even if most properties belong the crown-government.
      In the case that the UK were to depart from the monarchy, they’d probably have to be indemnified, given some of those properties for them privately, as family homes (especially if they family invested their own funds in them), and the government would keep others.

    • Josie says:

      Anne receives money from the Queen because Anne is a working royal. Anne also has her own estate, which generates income and also conveniently includes houses for both of her children. The late Queen Mother also had her own money (the senior members of royal family have tended to bank the income from their private estates, and then call on the public purse for all the expenses) and the Queen mother left her money to her grandchildren and great-grandchildren (probably not including Charles — although he got all her Jewels — nor William).

      There’s not much transparency in terms of how the Queen funds her family — abolishing the Civil list was supposed to reduce public expenditure but the “voluntary tax” on the crown estates is a bit of a joke (my personal feeling anyway) and one gets the feeling that there’s a lot of cash sloshing around for the monarch’s children and their families.

      • Tina says:

        Yes, this. For example, the Queen didn’t make the necessary repairs to Buckingham Palace for decades, and it’s now at crisis point. So the income from the Crown Estates going to the royals was “temporarily” increased from 15% to 25% to pay for those repairs. (The Crown Estates belong to the Crown, not the Queen. The Crown is a complicated concept that boils down to the British state).

        I will say that Charles is much more transparent about the income from the Duchy of Cornwall than the Queen is about the income from the Duchy of Lancaster. She could be banking it all for all we know.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Crown Estate money was (illegally) used to fix up Anne’s private residence, and the whole estate is secured with taxpayer money.

      • Redgrl says:

        Whats the story with shady funds for Anne?

      • Tourmaline says:

        Anne’s children Peter and Zara, due to being not-royal, also profit from things like being able to endorse products (Zara, as an equestrian) and Peter getting $$ jobs for outlets like the Royal Bank of Scotland and getting some kind of contract to do with organizing the Queen’s 90th birthday events.

        They have also sold access to personal photographs and stories in outlets such as Hello! magazine, quite controversial in the case of Peter’s wedding when royals were horrified when pictures of them enjoying the reception party were splashed in the press to the tune of $$$ for Peter and his bride.

        Not bashing the two of them, just the reality of their “normal lives” has been HEAVILY tinged by royal-adjacent-privilege. And that is not even getting into their living arrangements on Anne’s Gatcombe estate.

      • Josie says:

        The story of shady funds just comes down to, no one audits the Queen worth a damn. The Crown estate funds are poorly tracked and the Duchy of Lancaster is essentially a black box. I’m not sure anyone wants to transfer control of anything to Westminster right now, but the monarchy’s budget and finances are as undemocratic as they could possibly be.

        Anne, Andrew, Edward, and their families are all living on the Queen’s largesse. It’s a bit of an open question how much the Queen has helped her cousins over the years: she has plenty of mechanisms for doing it undetected. At least the Civil List was above board. Charles’s quest to streamline the monarchy can be seen, in one light, as a self-interested attempt to ensure that he’s not on the hook to pay for many folks as his mother has been.

      • PrincessK says:

        The Queen has financially bailed out her cousins many times to help them avoid bankruptcy, but the stories of bankruptcy within the royal family, like most of the other skeletons gets brushed under the carpet.

    • Josie says:

      It’s all a bit complicated, but the Royal Family has access to income from The Crown Estates plus the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. Those duchies are among some of the largest landowners in Britain — their rent incomes are massive, not to mention profits from various businesses operated on Duchy-owned land.

      • Casey20 says:

        The confusion with the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall is that the British Tax Payers believe they are the owners, they are not. The Queen Owns the Duchy of Lancaster (or whomever is Queen/King) and Cornwall is for the older son on the Monarch. British Tax Payers DO NOT Own either nor do they have the rights to either.

      • Casey20 says:

        The Crown Estates is a totally different beast. Complicated but basically, my best assessment is that the Crown Estates is own by the Crown but managed/controlled by the government. So the Queen can’t sale anything that belongs to the Crown. 99.9% of Brits don’t understand how their goverment was formed. Thus all the craziness about “owning” members of the RF and how they “pay” for the RF and the cost of clothes etc. its all just ridiculous. The RF could stop focusing on their charities tomorrow and there is nothing the British people could do but protest and hope their dissapproval is enough to shame the Royals back to “work”. Meanwhile the Queen and her family would still have access to the money, homes and other amenties that most of us could only dream about!

      • Tina says:

        Neither Charles nor the Queen can sell any of the assets of the Duchies either. If the monarchy ended tomorrow, I guarantee you that the royals would not walk away with the entirety (or even the majority) of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The commentary here is enough to make one wish for a Corbyn government.

      • Casey20 says:

        Tina: The government has ZERO to do with either Dutchy. It’s basically in a trust for future Kings/ Queens and first born son’s of the Monarch. As far as the Government dissolving its agreement with the RF (Crown Estate) You think Brexit is a hot mess this would be worst, much worst! Question: with all do respect: Do the Brit s take high school or elementary level history courses?? Not trying to offend.

      • Tina says:

        Casey: you really have no idea what you’re talking about. The Duchies are regulated by Parliament. To whit: The Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863 and 1982, Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838, Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, Duchy of Lancaster Act 1988 etc. You’re honestly embarrassing yourself at this point.

  16. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I think people are taking this “normal life” thing too far. I think what Harry means is that he wants his son to have a life similar to Anne’s kids. They live fairly private lives and you really only see them for official family events.
    Harry isn’t talking about his kid working at McDonald’s folks.

  17. TheOriginalMia says:

    A source speculated…In other words, the Sussexes haven’t laid out a specific plan for Archie’s life, but at the moment, it appears to be one similar to Anne’s kids. Okay. Good for 8 day old Archie to have a plan for life.

  18. ShazBot says:

    I can 100% see him modelling Archie’s and any future children’s upbringing on Peter and Zara Phillips upbringings. They’re obviously rich and privileged because the Queen is their grandmother, but they, for all intents and purposes, have a pretty normal life. They are royal adjacent, and are there for big things, but also, presumably, lead very “normal” private lives and aren’t in the public eye a majority of the time.

  19. Tpoe says:

    How naive of him. You want a normal life without the public eye on you? Pretty sure that’s par for the course when you a member of your country’s royal family.

    I mean I get that he wants to protect his son and he thinks the grass is greener on the other side etc etc but still.

  20. DS9 says:

    I admire Harry a bit for “working” after three birth of the baby. Perhaps he finally understands that what they do isn’t really work. Stepping out to shake hands at events doesn’t really cost him or his family very much effort but it does earn him goodwill with the press and the people which he can use to give Archie options as he gets older.

    As for this normal life business, I would hazard to guess given his mother’s work effort and his father’s seemingly willingness to try to match it, that their intention is to raise Archie to choose what work he’d like, the freedom to be educated in the way that best suits his goals, etc.

    It seems unlikely Archie will be a working royal. But I’d be surprised if this child isn’t well educated and fully employed as an adult. I would bet anything that’s what these two mean by a normal life, a mostly private childhood and career choices.

    Meghan likely knows better than anyone else that this kid will only barely fit in with the kind of privileged douchebags we’d expect a child of his lineage to deal with.

    • Well said.
      When I read PH’s statement, I take it he means ‘as normal as possible’. I think they’re both intelligent and know that ‘normal’, as most people usually interpret, is not going to happen.

  21. perplexed says:

    He’ll have a normal rich person’s life. I’m pretty sure that’s what he means. There’s not much to dissect there — normal like his mom was until 19.

  22. Prairiegirl says:

    “Normal” life = aristocratic, where you dabble at work, go on vacation, leave domestic drudgery to your staff, and live off your vast inherited income. That’s royal code for ‘normal’ – they certainly don’t mean ‘common.’ Not even we commoners would live like commoners if we could help it, right? ;)

  23. Marigold says:

    Yeah, good luck with that. Sometimes these people are delusional.

  24. Julieta says:

    I’m aware of the actual abdication process, but in this day and age if the brothers were both to simply announce that they don’t want their titles and plan to abdicate when and if the time comes, that would effectively be the end of it. There’d be practically no public support for trying to force them to stay in their roles until such a time as they can officially pass on being King, and absolutely no public support for taking their children from them. If they went off and actually lived the boring, normal, everyday upper middle class lives they claim to want the media interest would largely die out within a few years, and they’d get to be pretty close to normal.

    It’s 2019. They aren’t trapped. They have the option of giving it all up. If they aren’t going to then they really need to drop the ‘normal life’ talk, because it’s getting real old.

    • Redgrl says:

      @julietta – yep. And then they can renounce all the money, palaces and perks that come with it too.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You cannot abdicate unless you are the monarch.

      You know the global press would never leave them alone, so this line of argument is silly. The hate, online attacks, chasing, physical attacks would all ramp up 1000000 fold. At least now they have the protection of the Palace. Are you forgetting the white supremacist group who tried to kill Harry as a race traitor? Or the tumblr idiots who are flying from country to country, plotting online to attack Meghan and their child? None of that would go away if they stopped doing their royal jobs.

      Whether or not they want the job, the royals themselves do not get to decide whether or not there should be a monarchy. The people get to decide and for now, they keep choosing to stick with a monarchy. If William and his line don’t want it? If Harry and his line don’t want it? The crown automatically goes to Andrew. No matter how much they might hate aspects of their jobs, neither of them hates their country enough to put it in Andrew’s hands.

      • DS9 says:

        We already have an excellent example of what the media does to those who abdicate, especially when they do so for an American divorcee.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        The Duke of Windsor was also a prime example of what happens when a future/former king was a Nazi sympathizer and a great embarrassment to ‘the crown.’

        He lived life in the public eye because he was a shameless high-rolling ex-king with a lot of money and connections and an interesting personal story, not because he was a victim of the press.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Imagine what royal news would have been had about Duke of Windsor and Wallis, or Grace Kelly and all her affairs with married men if social media had been around during their time.

      • Redgrl says:

        @nota – please try to make your points without calling other people’s views “silly”. It’s not necessary and devalues your argument.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is the nicest word I can use for what are silly, irrelevant, ridiculous “arguments” that Harry and Meghan should walk away. He has a legal role to play and isn’t going anywhere. To pretend otherwise, to build up these enormous arguments about why he’s wrong not to walk away? The height of gas lighting, whether by haters or fans.

      • Redgrl says:

        Well, speaking as a lawyer, it’s best to stick to the facts supporting one’s argument rather than calling opposing views silly. Speaking as someone surfing by on a gossip blog, name-calling just makes people ignore the message. On the issue at hand – one day Harry may say he’s had enough and step out of the public eye. I don’t see it happening but I’m not in his head. If he does he would still have to have security, I assume, although presumably to a lesser degree.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LOL. Feel free to take your lawyer threats to another site. I’m not going to worry about them.

        I see you enjoying someone insinuating William is having an affair lower down. Have no problem with their “facts” eh?

        I know some like to think Harry is stupid, but he isn’t. He knows that life outside of Palace protection would be much worse, and there would be no protection if he walked. They’re not going anywhere.

  25. HeyThere! says:

    He wants his kids to be able to ‘make mistakes and live’ without it being on the cover of every magazine and online on every social media site. I get that. Being a parent is scary and you want to protect your kids. I can’t imagine worrying about my littles the way he and Meghan have to.

  26. kerwood says:

    I don’t blame him. After seeing the savagery his wife has been subjected to, why should he subject his child to the same thing? The ‘public’ is full of ugly racists who want to hurt and shame his family. Harry paid his debt to ‘the public’ when he was forced to mourn the death of his mother IN PUBLIC. Let the mob find someone else to latch on to.

  27. DS9 says:

    The more I think on it, the more I feel ways about those who assume Archie will just be able to seamlessly blend into the same social circle as his cousins and just live on privilege and vacations forever.

    Those people will never treat him as a straight equal. They will play at deference to his face and continue their racist and classist douchery in a myriad of ways great and small.

    If you think his parents aren’t aware of that and aren’t shaping his future with that in mind, then you’re operating from a place of privilege yourself.

    He may be 7th in line but he is still the black child of an American cable tv actress. The turnip toff will not be his peers. He will have to find his own way.

    • kerwood says:

      Say out louder so the people in the back can hear you.

      His son is less than a week old and Harry already knows what it means to be the parent of a Black child. And I say Black because it doesn’t matter how much White blood (some of it ROYAL) is in his veins. Archie is being treated like a Black child.

      For a man as privileged as Harry, these last few days have probably been a huge shock. It was one thing to go after his wife because Megan is grown and can take care of herself. But to see the mob howling for his child, calling him a ‘monkey’ when he was three days old, has probably been devastating.

      I wouldn’t blame Harry for wanting to shield Archie as much as he can. He’ll find out that he can’t. But I can’t blame him for wanting to try.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Yes, I think so. I think people are desperate to see just “how black” this child is, and the Sussexes are wise to roll him out slowly – his little baby face, his little baby feet, and so on.

    • Redgrl says:

      Ds9 – good points. I’d bet most (not all, but most) of the Toffs will always sneer down their racist, classist noses at Archie and Meghan too. That said, I still agree with the earlier posts that his fetishized view of normal is offensive to the average working person.

      • DS9 says:

        The problem is that there is no good word for what they likely want for their child.

        Normal sounds tone deaf but what else do you call it?

      • Redgrl says:

        @ds9 – hmmm, what term instead of normal…private life, perhaps?

    • waitwho says:

      that might be true but Harry and Meghan still work for and take from the same system that put people like the turnip toff into a class system that see their child as less then. But they will not live no matter how much they want people to think they are normal because the perks are to good to live behind

    • perplexed says:

      I think the kid will be seen as white like the actress from Pretty Little Liars (Troian Bellisario) He’s growing up in Britain which doesn’t have the one-drop rule. Emilia Clarke is 1/4 Indian and we all see her as white. If his skin is white (which it appears to be so far), I think he’ll be seen as white. Because MM’s skin is so light, I think she also benefits from the privilege of light skin in the way someone like Angela Bassett wouldn’t. MM does have certain privileges because of the way she looks, and I think her son will benefit from that too.

      • DS9 says:

        Just curious but are you biracial?

        Also, no one is going to forget Archie is biracial. I’m not going to argue about the one drop rule’s application in the UK but he won’t be able to fly under the radar color wise because his celebrity is tied directly to his parentage.

      • kerwood says:

        Archie’s appearance isn’t going to decide whether he’s perceived as Black. It didn’t matter how light Megan is, one of the first headlines about her was ‘Straight Out of Compton!!!!’. You can’t get a dog whistle any louder than that.

        Archie is going to be reminded that he’s Black every day of his life. I only hope that his parents (and his grandmother) teach him that it’s something to embrace and celebrate.

      • Kendra says:

        Emilia is 1/8 Indian.

        And if his parents manage to pull of this private citizen thing then I don’t think his heritage will matter to him, especially in his circles. But if he is more public figure it might matter.

  28. S says:

    OK. And I think the Anne example is apt but … and it’s a big one … The family business is being seen. Being known. Being a visible symbol of a nation. That’s literally Harry and Meghan’s job. And I agree with others that when Harry says “normal” he means wealthy, privileged, well educated and high status, but not bombarded by paparazzi, and while I agree that latter is something I totally understand no one wanting for any child, let alone their own, the former mostly comes because of the latter. If no one is interested in the royal family, the royal family will cease to be, well, the royal family.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Harry and Meghan are being seen doing their jobs. Meghan did 120 engagements in her first year, 30 of which didn’t officially count because they were pre-wedding. That’s pretty good considering she was in her first year and just starting out.

      What people are deliberately pretending not to understand? They aren’t saying they won’t be visible and doing their jobs. They’re saying their child is not public property, and they will keep their private life private. Anne wasn’t attacked for doing this. Sophie and Edward weren’t attacked for doing this. Princess Margaret wasn’t attacked for doing this.

      With the rumored slimdown plan? Harry and Meghan will be working royals for 30 years, but their children will never be. Any affection the people need to have for “the royals” to keep the monarchy in place? That burden, fair or not, rests on W&K and their kids who will all be working royals.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The public (people & British media) was/is not interested in the private life of Anne, Sophie or Edward and up until “Rose who???”" no one was interested in the private life of dull & normal Bill & Cathy Cambridge.

        The public is interested and always will be (at least the next 20 years) interested because the Sussexes have become a global brand.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The public interest in Harry and Meghan changes nothing. Whether they are popular or not, the public has no right to their child. Their child is a private citizen with public figure parents.

      • Redgrl says:

        I saw what you did there @baytampabay – #rosewho? Ha!! #turnipgate

    • DS9 says:

      He’s got three cousins higher in the line than he does. Meghan could raise him in Buddhist monastery in Tibet with no outward interaction and there would still be plenty of people around to keep the public interested in the royal family.

      I think the more like scenario is that we’ll see Archie at all of the usual royal appearances that his extended cousins attend along with appearances that capitalize on the attention H&M seek for their charities and that his education and experiences will be with an eye to assisting and eventually assuming his parents’ charitable positions. That’s if he doesn’t find a career he wants more.

  29. violet says:

    Of course their idea of normal involves gobs of money and privilege! Everyone they know is rich and well connected and hence privileged. What they don’t want for Archie is the duty, responsibility, and lack of privacy that comes along with royalty.

    So, in other words, they want him to have all of the perks and none of the drawbacks. Gee what a surprise.

    • S says:

      I think it’s totally fair to call out the downsides of their life but, as someone else said, if those downsides outweighed the benefits, they could opt out and live an ACTUALLY normal life. If they (or, really, it would be on Harry) renounce his titles and the income that accompanies them, he’d still be quite privileged and well off, just not AS privileged and well off as he is now and little Archie could grow up just as normal as they wish.

      But as long as Harry and Meghan are full-time “working” royals, being normal isn’t even in the realm of possibility. Because there’s nothing less normal in 2019 than a ceremonial monarchy where a dozen or so people are kept in lavish style based on accidents of birth in exchange for smiling, waving and posing for pics. Can this constant being on display be emotionally trying? Oh, I have no doubt, but it’s not exactly digging ditches.

      And, sure, the British press especially can be absolutely brutal and unrelenting. But also remember that some of the worst moments of press coverage this family has experienced has been of their own making. Speaking only of Harry in particular: dressing like a Nazi, getting naked in a Las Vegas suite with people he met in a bar, etc. … And, no, that’s normal “kid stuff.” That’s rich kid, privileged beyond belief and utterly spoiled stuff, and it hasn’t impacted his earning potential or popularity one bit, it appears.

      I don’t begrudge them the perks of their position, but you can’t keep the good stuff and discard the tough … That’s not how life works, even for modern-day royalty.

      • violet says:

        “I don’t begrudge them the perks of their position, but you can’t keep the good stuff and discard the tough … That’s not how life works, even for modern-day royalty.”

        It is though and always has been for rich people. They have always used their money to get out of doing things they don’t want. Par for the course.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No they cannot just walk away. Look at history, then look at the repeated attempts on the lives of Harry and Meghan in the last two years. Walking away is not an option, both because of Harry’s sense of duty and because it puts Andrew in a dangerous position of power.

        They are fulfilling their jobs as royals. All they’re saying is, our child will never be a working royal and is a private citizen. Just like Zara, Peter, Louise, James, etc.

        Simple to understand unless you deliberately don’t want to.

      • windyriver says:

        @nota, as you pointed out previously, Harry is a Counsellor of State; I understand why and what duties this entails. He’s not going to walk away from this, because Andrew is right there behind him, more than ready to step in, but – if he wanted to, are there formal constraints? Does he need approval/permission from either Parliament, the monarch, etc.?

      • Tina says:

        Andrew has been a counsellor of state since 1981. He may be a threat to girls without power, but predators don’t prey on the scions of privilege. Harry can do what he wants. There are no official constraints on him beyond his own sense of duty.

      • windyriver says:

        @Tina, appreciate the information re: constraints, but my reference to Andrew wasn’t related to predatory activity. I know about the Epstein connection, etc., but prior to that coming to light, over the years I’d already thought of Andrew in conjunction with questionable business dealings and just generally being a pushy, unpleasant person.

        In the unlikely event, after HM passes, something were to happen to Charles and William, while George was still a minor, would Harry not be called on as Regent? So if he stepped away, wouldn’t that person be Andrew? Very possibly this is incorrect, but that was my line of thought.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There are legal constraints. Harry cannot walk without government permission, legal changes that make Andrew possible Regent if Harry walks.

      • Tina says:

        @Windyriver, the law is clear that Harry can give up his title and leave his place as a counsellor of state and in the line of succession if he wishes to do so. There are no legal constraints preventing him from doing that, just the moral considerations that you and nota have mentioned, which are that if something happened to Charles and William, Harry would be regent while George is underage.

    • Surly Gale says:

      violet, you’re completely forgetting the sub-text of racism. That needs to be taken into account.
      s, you’re also completely negating the impact of childhood trauma. Harry has owned his past, time to quit beating him up for it. No one can say they didn’t do stupid stuff as a youth. No one, not even you, is completely sinless. Only One. So give us all a break, please, and quit pontificating about stuff long past, eh? Let’s keep moving forward, okay? Cause looking backwards means you’re not looking where you’re going, and that can end up with even more dire consequences….These parents are looking ahead and they are attempting to give their children the best world possible. Who wouldn’t do their best for their children? C’mon now, let’s be gentle , look forward, and be kind. Cheers

  30. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Sure he does. And Archie will never have sugar, ever, and he’ll be reading by three.

    • Surly Gale says:

      The Archies’s song “Candy Girl” came to mind: Oh, sugar, oh, honey, honey, you are my candy girl, and you’ve got me wanting you” is now my earworm. thanks for that!!!

  31. guest says:

    That will never happen. Otherwise give up your title and live off your own money.

    • celialarson12 says:

      Seems this demand of giving up titles and living off their own money for wanting to raise up their child as a private citizen only applies to Harry and Meghan. Where are your calls for Princess Anne and the Essexes?

      And on that note where are the calls for Princesses Eugene and Beatrice to give up their titles, since they are royal but live as private citizens and do what they like ( I am imagining this may be comparable to the life Archie will be living only with a serious career) ?

  32. M.A.F. says:

    If Harry & William wanted a “normal life” they would have “quit” the monarchy long ago and got an actual job & live in the suburbs. But since that has not happened & probably never will, they need to stop with this “normal” life stuff.

  33. Noway says:

    First if the article is accurate, Harry never used the word “normal.” I see a little parsing of the words “normal” here. which kind of isn’t the point. I think we can all say an uber wealthy royal prince’s idea of normal and most other people’s idea of normal are probably not the same thing. Harry said his son is a private citizen or basically not a working royal, and if you follow this the world is not entitled to constant views of his son. All statements are true, and pretty consistent with Harry’s comments on being royal most of his life. Not surprised and I wish them luck with this as there is such a clamor for him. Granted a lot is negative, but a good amount is positive too. Still I hope they find a good balance for them as a family.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Archie will be lucky if his life is 1/5 as normal as JFK Jr.’s live was.

      • Noway says:

        I don’t think I agree entirely with that. First, Harry and Meghan can be like Anne if they wish. She is year after year one of the hardest working royals. In her younger years she was quite popular too obviously, not social media popular but still. She kept her kids out of the spotlight a fair amount by just working quietly. Now Harry and Meghan may want a higher profile to encourage more, this is okay, but it might make it a bit harder. Still William and Kate seem to be able to give their kids a bit of privacy, so I think Harry and Meghan can do it too. Probably more cause no one in the family is going to be the King of England. Plus royal family members popularity seems to change with time, and who knows what the pecking order for most popular royal will be in 10 years. Although my bet is Charlotte. She’s cute with sass.

        Now JFK Jr did have a lot of privacy as a kid. Mainly cause after both his father and uncle died, Jackie was obsessed with security and privacy and paid for it. In fact it wasn’t till people noticed how handsome he was as a young man that people went crazy. JFK Jr was People’s sexiest man alive and a staple of NYC life. His father was handsome, but he was more. Now if Archie turns out to be that good looking maybe. He could be. As a young man both his Dad and Uncle were gorgeous, so who knows. People forget how good looking William was he just had droves of girls after him.

  34. Rae says:

    Holy heck there is a LOT of resentful people in this thread. I’m glad to see that there has been many replies that show a bit of common sense and are not jumping on the “normal” bandwagon. You absolutely do know what he means by normal and I think people are far too eager to trash him for, what I see, as a earnest opinion of someone who grew up in the fishbowl.

    Admitting you don’t want your child to be subjected to the crap you were as a child and as an adult, is not ungrateful. Yes, they’ve never had to worry about putting food on the table, but their entire lives have been performing animals. Just look at the way some of you are acting like he is yours to do as you say.

    Harry has a choice for his son which he didn’t have himself; the life of a non working royal, or subjecting him to the type feverish demanding public like I’m seeing in this thread. I know which I would choose.

    • lanne says:

      This is what the Obamas went through as well. Some people can’t STAND the idea of paying for the comfort of a black family–it creates all kinds of weird “ownership” sensibility that doesn’t exist with white people. No one cares what Melania spends, or Kate. But everything penny Meghan is thought to have spent (real or not) is subject to outrage. Sadly, it will be the same for Archie. I think they will go on ignoring the riffraff and doing their jobs, making their own decisions and getting crap for them. There’s no point trying to please those people anyway. They’ll find something else to bitch about. It would be horrible for the Royal Family if the racists succeeded in chasing the Sussexes away. I think Charles and William would do ANYTHING to prevent that, as you would have a very telegenic, well-connected family with lots of powerful friends that the Royals would have no control over. The Sussexes aren’t a pair of Nazi-supporting embarrassments like the Windsors. The untethered Sussexes would be the most visible couple on Earth. If the RF are wise, they will use the power of the Sussexes to enhance their global brand. If they are stupid, they will chase the Sussexes away and diminish the brand beyond repair this generation. (I think that would break the Queen’s heart, as it would undo everything she has dedicated her life to). That’s the bargaining power the Sussexes hold right now.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If a final hard BREXIT takes place, the Sussexes will become even more important as ambassadors for “Brand UK”.

      • Enn says:

        I actually care very much and resent the hell out of every penny that Melania and her orange trashbag spend. I’m not a British taxpayer so IDGAF about Kate’s pennies.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        THANK YOU Enn! I really resent the amount of US tax payers dollars spent on them (Melania & The Orange Sh*t Goblin) for security for their weekly weekend trip to Mar-a-Largo in Palm Beach, Florida.

      • Ali says:

        @lanne – yes, the attitude of ownership over another person’s life is so skin crawlingly creepy.

      • Noway says:

        The Trumps spend more money than anyone on security. Mainly, cause he’s not as rich as he brags he is and he has too many kids who go all over. Unfortunately, now I think we need to limit the amount on things like first family security. If the First Lady wants to live in NYC for a year or your children need a two week trip to Dubai you then pay for the security, not the US taxpayer. Think of all the laws, which should have been common sense, we are going to have to enact when he’s gone. The Republicans will enact them too, cause as soon as he’s gone they aren’t going to want a Democrat getting that.

        I personally don’t think the royal family is racist. I do believe some of the people around them are racist, and that’s where this is coming from. I don’t think Charles, William, and definitely not the Queen have anything against Meghan at all, but if they do it’s not because of race. If it’s anything, it’s old fashioned jealousy at how popular she is. I also agree they would not want the appearance of it being racist, and feel they are trying to fight that image. Maybe without increasing Meghan and Harry’s popularity. Plus, the monarchy’s response over the years to a lot of these things is a stiff upper lip and ignore it. Not sure the correct method to fight institutional racism, when you are the institution. Maybe it’s pretty baby pictures with the Queen.

    • Oh No says:

      Thank you! Some of these people are acting as if Harry personally knocked on each of their doors and called them poor. Everyone’s normal is going to be different, the word can’t be without context.

      And it’s gross when people bring up the taxpayer aspect to assert some sort of ownership or authority over the child’s life

      Harry and Meghan have chosen to be working royals, it doesn’t make their decision to keep their child’s life private any less valid

      • Olenna says:

        ITA, and what’s also sad about this entire discussion is the obvious fact that a lot of people don’t read beyond a sensational headline. Nowhere in that article did it say Harry, Meghan, their close family or their PR team were interviewed for this story, passed on information to, or spoke to the reporter. It’s another inept, unverified, click-bait tale of #mypalacesource said this and the reporter made up that. Same as all the other tales like tiara-gate, 5 a.m. emails, difficult Meghan making KM cry, and raising Archie as gender neutral. Reading up and down this thread just makes me SMDH at some people for their presumptuous nature and willingness to believe the constant pile-on the press generates to get their clicks and petty revenge on the Sussexes for lack of access.

      • kerwood says:

        I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people going on about Harry’s obligation to the British taxpayer are AMERICAN and don’t have a speck of skin in this game.

        Most British taxpayers (other than the most strident republicans) have come to terms with what the Royal family gets AND what they give, even if they don’t give a shit about any of them. Most British taxpayers realize that having a royal family brings in BILLIONS of dollars in tourist funds and creates an industry that employs thousands.

        If Brexit goes through, the British are going to need the money the Royal family generates even more.

  35. violet says:

    Archie will grow up to be incredibly wealthy and well connected. He will never have to worry about money for one second of his life. If he works, it will be his choice. Most likely it will be on a very flexible, part time basis doing something glamorous and or personally meaningful and fulfilling to him. In addition, since he is so far down the line of succession, an extremely valid case can be made for him in deserving privacy and protection from public scrutiny while he is growing up.

    Given all this, I’d say he is much more fortunate than either George, Charlotte, and Louis.

  36. val says:

    “Normal” is defined by what is normal to them. I am not going to chastise them for using the word. Should they go into a long diatribe of exactly how he plans to raise his son when asked? We all live our lives according to our perceived norms.

    Heck I thought it was normal that all kids went to boarding school, had nannies and multiple bathrooms in their homes until I moved to the states and met those who did not share similar upbringing.

    I don’t know why so many are bothered by this.

  37. mave says:

    people, get a life and leave these royals alone!

  38. Rach says:

    What is harry’s normal? Partying with the Clooney’s, vacationing on private jets, baby showers w/the rich & famous? Harry wants it both ways. Forego royalty, get a job & settle down with his own earnings. Then I will believe he wants normal! Like someone said here, have some gratitude!

    • DS9 says:

      The question is how to raise Archie now, not how he’ll live his adult life.

      It’s intentionally obtuse to pretend otherwise.

      Most of these children have been raised out of the spotlight and then move into public life as they get older.

      Why all the vitriol over what working royals who are indeed working do with their minor child before he’s old enough to work?

    • Vanessa says:

      Harry and Meghan have every right as parent to protect their son from the Media who by the way has treated Meghan with nothing but racist abuse throughout her whole pregnancy. did you see how a BBC radio host tweeted a racial image of Archie being portrayed as monkey Meghan has been the target of racist campaign by some people in the British media and some of the royal reporters and you think that Archie a baby should be subject to the same type of abuse that his mother and his grandmother is subject too . I think a lot people are using this story to attack Harry why is ok for the Cambridge to have completely and totally privacy for their kids the media are not allowed to publish any information or pictures of the Cambridge without permission. But Harry and Meghan want to protect their son from the relentless cruel racist British press and some how their ungrateful their in wrong the two Royal who are irrelevant according to the royal reporters and the Cambridge stans . Are obligations to give access to their child to be judge and racial bully but the future queen and king kids who are next in throne are allowed to protect their children from the press and everyone is like their such great parents .

      • Rach says:

        People are just pointing out that Harry conveniently uses the ‘normalcy’ card. He once said nobody wants to be a king or something to that effect. Both brothers have made similar references from the confines of their cushy palace life. If life is that hard, live a normal life like the rest of us.

        Btw, Gayle King has an exclusive, did they check with Harry?

      • DS9 says:

        He said no one wants to be king in the context of the fact that you only become king upon the death of a beloved parent or grandparent.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Rach…Harry’s comments were totally misinterpreted. He knows its duty but was just saying that given the responsibility it as not as if they are all desperate and over eager to take it all on.

  39. Vanessa says:

    So let me get this straight William and Kate have decided to mostly raise their kids in completely and totally privacy the public only gets pictures when it’s the child birthday. That’s when William and Kate decided to gracefully allowed the British people and press to see their kids on their terms and all you heard from the Cambridges stans and royals reporters how wonderful it’s that the Cambridge have privacy then get to be normal and not hound by the press . But Harry and Meghan decided to basically do the same thing and protected Archie allowed him to grow in a environment without cameras and people are loss their minds over it . Why is their such a sick gross entitlement to Meghan and Harry and now their child why are so many people so obsession with telling Meghan and Harry what to do what to name their child it’s getting ridiculous. Archie was just days old when he was portrayed as a monkey on social media his Meghan has been accused of been uppity social climber the royal reporters are tweeting with know racist people on twitter who hate Meghan so much . That one of this woman in this hate group flew to New York where Meghan was having her baby showers to tried to And I quoted ripped her fake baby bump and whip the smirks smile off her face she also screaming profanities at Megan too . But everyone please continue to talk about how wrong it’s for Harry wanting his half black son to not be in spotlight as much .

    • Bohemian Angel says:

      @Vanessa Exactly THIS!

      I really can’t believe some of these comments on this thread. People are so entitled.
      To the people on here bitching;
      Signed British taxpayer.
      Thank you.

    • Olenna says:

      Well said, Vanessa and Bohemian Angel. Some people want so badly to find fault with the Sussexes that they will they ignore their own hypocrisy and slight their own intelligence by commenting without reading or thinking, often unmasking their inherent racism and bigotry in the process.

  40. paddingtonjr says:

    It wasn’t phrased the best way, but I can understand the sentiment. He saw how people reacted to his mother and how her death/funereal became a public spectacle instead of just a personal tragedy. I can still remember seeing footage of him and William outside Buckingham Palace with Charles; Harry was just clinging to Charles for dear life as people reached for the boys. As an adult, he probably accepted that the press was going to tear him and his girlfriends down at regular intervals, but couldn’t have anticipated the venom with which the press has gone after his wife and now his infant son. I’m sure there are times he envies Princess Anne’s children who can pretty much come and go from the royal life at will.

  41. A says:

    I can definitely see Harry wanting to give his children more options when it comes to their life. But I don’t know how that will pan out in reality. I think Archie, more than any of Harry’s other children (if he has them), will have certain responsibilities to take on, because of the endeavours his parents have undertaken. I’ve mentioned this before, but the Invictus Games are going to be the purview of the Sussex kids. Same with Sentebale. It’ll be interesting to see what they do with their lives though.

  42. Tina says:

    People seem to be implying that Danny Baker (the BBC radio host) had no consequences for his actions and that people agreed with him. Absolutely no one thought he was right, the BBC fired him immediately and the Crown Prosecution Service is investigating a criminal prosecution.

    • Sam says:

      Danny baker received a standing ovation at his show days after he got sacked….

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Some people will do anything, standing ovation for Danny Baker, vote for Trump, vote for BREXIT, try to attack Meghan”s fake baby bump…..the list goes on and on.

    • Bohemian Angel says:

      Police have dropped the case as there was no evidence of a crime committed apparently…

  43. ChiaMom says:

    no one here can see that he wants to shield his child from RACISM and this is nothing about wanting privacy or not?! Really ?! After the way he was treated in utero?! All the hate ?! Disappointed.

  44. Rach says:

    Everyone has the right to do raise their kid however they choose but you can’t give the press mixed signals. Either you want privacy or you don’t. Will & Kate did it right. A photo-op outside Lindo wing & then off to wherever. Kate didn’t appear with Louis until his communion? They left her alone.

    First the statements asking for privacy, then a photo call, a pic with the queen, pic w/the forget me nots. I am sure there will be more pics to come. Parents always like to show of their kids but do it in your private Instagram account & share it with friends & family not the entire world.

    The press will hound them if they continue putting out pics in their public Sussex account coz public develops a bond with the child & will treat him as their own. Just like they hounded Di, the more she appeared in public, the more she was photographed, the adulation just grew. There is an unhealthy obsession on the part of the media & the consumers.

  45. Alyse says:

    I think by ‘normal’ they mean as stable and private as possible… as all parents (no matter how famous or not) would want (Kris Jenner types excluded on the privacy part)

  46. Rina says:

    A tangent (and perhaps, unrelated) question from the discussion on this topic:
    Can Harry relinquish his titles and become a private citizen?

    • Tina says:

      Yes. See the Peerage Act 1963 and the House of Lords Act 1999.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Tina do you think he would ever actually do it? I’m just curious…as an American I have no idea.

      • Tina says:

        @Lorelai, no, I don’t. Charles and Diana didn’t raise him to shirk his duty. The only way I could see that happening would be if (God forbid) there was a serious attempt on Meghan’s or Archie’s lives.