The Sussexes announce their spring exit plan, and it’s justifiably terse

Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex at service to mark the centenary of the Royal Air Force on 10/07/2018

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex posted a lengthy statement to their SussexRoyal website on Friday, a series of confirmations about many things which had already been widely reported or confirmed by Buckingham Palace. I’m not going to get into every single thing they discussed, because it was a lot, but you can read the full “Spring 2020 transition” post here. As previewed throughout all of last week, the Queen has yanked their “royal” branding. There is no argument to be made here other than “it’s a punitive action.” Especially after you read the SussexRoyal post, it’s clear to me that they were planning to build the SussexRoyal brand into a charitable organization, but they were explicitly told not to because of some completely make-believe “rules.” Here are the biggest newsmaker highlights (with my headings):

Media intrusion: The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. They remain a valued part of Her Majesty’s family.

The hypocrisy around the Sussexes making money: While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.

They’re still HRHs: As agreed and set out in January, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will retain their “HRH” prefix, thereby formally remaining known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer actively use their HRH titles as they will no longer be working members of the family as of Spring 2020.

Harry is still in the line of succession: As the grandson of Her Majesty and second son of The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex remains sixth in line to the throne of The British Monarchy and the Order of Precedence is unchanged.

They’re still working with their patronages, even the “royal” ones: It was agreed that The Duke and Duchess will no longer be able to formally carry out ‘official duties’ for The Queen or represent The Commonwealth, but they will, however, be allowed to maintain their patronages (including those that are classified as ‘royal’ patronages).

STFU about security: It is agreed that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son. This is based on The Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into The Royal Family, his military service, the Duchess’ own independent profile, and the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years. No further details can be shared as this is classified information for safety reasons.

They told their office staff in January that they were Sussexiting: Based on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s desire to have a reduced role as members of The Royal Family, it was decided in January that their Institutional Office would have to be closed, given the primary funding mechanism for this official office at Buckingham Palace is from HRH The Prince of Wales. The Duke and Duchess shared this news with their team personally in January once they knew of the decision, and have worked closely with their staff to ensure a smooth transition for each of them. Over the last month and a half, The Duke and Duchess have remained actively involved in this process, which has understandably been saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their dedicated team.

They’re starting a non-profit, not a foundation: As shared in early January on this website, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not plan to start a ‘foundation’, but rather intend to develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally. The creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to.

The use of “Royal” branding: While The Duke and Duchess are focused on plans to establish a new non-profit organisation, given the specific UK government rules surrounding use of the word ‘Royal’, it has been therefore agreed that their non-profit organisation will not utilise the name ‘Sussex Royal’ or any other iteration of ‘Royal.’ For the above reason, the trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed.

They could have used royal-branding but choose not to: While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.

[From SussexRoyal.com]

So many terse, shady, amazing asides in here. Of course they trademarked SussexRoyal, just as the Cambridges trademarked their names and the name of their foundation. Of course Meghan and Harry could have continued to call themselves Sussex Royal, because the Queen and her people are truly being petty and punitive a–holes. Of course they told their staff about Sussexit in January, it was always established that they would be ending their palace office back then.

The Sussexes also pointed out in this post that Harry will retain all of his honorary ranks but they “will not be used as they are in the gift of the Sovereign” and Harry “will not perform any official duties associated with these roles, given his dedication to the military community and ten years of service he will of course continue his unwavering support to the military community in a non-official capacity.” That’s how f–king petty the Queen is – Harry gets to retain his military ranks but she won’t allow him to do any work or events in association with the military.

Anyway, yeah. The coverage of this in the British press is extraordinarily bitter and nasty. They cannot believe – AGAIN! – that Meghan and Harry won’t just sit there and take their endless abuse. The press is absolutely flabbergasted that the Sussexes are obviously quite pissed off (and showing how pissed off they are) about the Queen continuing to find new ways to punish them. The bitterness and nastiness started with Buckingham Palace, the Sussexes reacted and now the media is adding another layer of vile horror on top of everything.

Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, Queen Elizabeth II, Meghan Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry at the 100th Anniversary of the Royal Air Force, Buckingham Palace, London, UK on Tuesday 10th July 2018

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

414 Responses to “The Sussexes announce their spring exit plan, and it’s justifiably terse”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    But how would the Wail and Dumb get their 10k clicks otherwise?

    • Bella DuPont says:

      DM and in particular Piers Morgan. He is making a play to return to American television. His last go-round at CNN had him trying to carve a niche out with liberals by standing against gun legislation. Of course, his incredibly nasty personality made sure he didn’t succeed. I suspect he’s decided to go for right wing commentary now, (most likely Fox News) and one of his major strategies for this is Shredding Meghan Markle, to buy his way into the hearts of the fox demographic.

      Meghan is nothing more than a symbolic figure for right wing hatred at the moment. A commodity to be used to demonstrate how “anti-woke” you are.

      • Guest2.0 says:

        Agree. I was amazed to see that the American right wing media machine (Breitbart, etc.) had latched on attacking Harry and in particular Meghan. It helped explain why so many Trumpers are the ones raging against them on social media and the British tabloids. They’ve made Meghan a symbol to hate to justify their white supremacy.

      • Belli says:

        She’s a woman of colour with opinions they hate in a position that they think is above her rightful place. She’s like a lightning rod embodying everything they despise.

      • Well Murdoch owns a great deal of media in the US as well as Australia I think. So, I’m sure Piers will bring his rabid frothing here as well. He’ll fit in just fine with the TRUMPitors. Also, I see Meghan’s father has just released a statement that he is going to CONTINUE selling photos and interviews to fund his retirement. That statement is a complete reversal of his saying for the last few years that he received no monies for what he does. He is such a liar. I would hate to get to the end of my life and realize that what I have spent it on is tearing down a young woman I once had a drink with ot a daughter.

      • Hermione says:

        Sussex fans need to prepare a preemptive strike. A petition to admonish the U.S. media not to get in bed with the U.K. media and Royal Reporters in trashing the Sussexes. It’s just a matter of time before they follow their cash cows to North America and start vilifying the Sussexes.

    • According to the Daily Mail —and picked up by The New York Post where I read it, Jessica Mulroney copyrighted the following last Wednesday: SussexGlobalCharities.com.
      Sounds like —as usual— the Sussexes have their game plan moving forward. I thought their point-by-point statement was articulate and well written. I especially liked the statement they made about their staff. In that brief paragraph they mention they are saddened as they move through the process of separating from their BP team One thing I find so true to form with the rabid bottom feeding press is they have taken that word — saddened — and lifted it out of the context of the paragraph pertaining to staff. Press headlines are all about how the Sussexes say in their updated website how SADDENED they are to leave. This is NOT how they used the word saddened. The press — I refuse to call them journalists—- really have some karma coming their way. Team Sussex for me and hooray for SussexGlobalCharities. The Sussexes are going high!

      • Angelique says:

        I think it is a good name for their organization. I am glad they made the change and are moving on in that respect. As far as Americans being outraged by the situation, I don’t know very many people who know who Harry and Meghan are. I also don’t hear the average person discussing the situation, except those on t.v. and on websites like this one. Most of us (Americans) just don’t seem to care. I think it really is a British, not American, issue. Best wishes to H and M. Honest.

      • Anne says:

        The Sussex Global charities was not copyrighted by Jessica Mulroney. She addressed this today on Twitter:

        If certain investigative journalists were to do their jobs, perhaps they would see that Shoebox Project Foundation is owned by a Mr Roy in North Carolina and has no affiliations or ties to our charity The Shoebox Project. Happy Sunday.

      • Well damn Anne. I bought the BS. I kinda liked sussexglobalcharities, but I appreciate your clarification. I guess I’m gonna just have to only believe what the Sussexes post directly on their media accounts. My bad. 🙊

      • Lady D says:

        When I read yesterday that Jessica was trade marking this name, I thought they were rooting out moles again. It seemed too obvious a ploy to be taken seriously.

      • Anne says:

        The DM will write up anything that instigates hate and outrage against the Sussex’s. Omid Scobie also posted this on Twitter about the Jessica Mulroney story and he is absolutely right.

        Same thing every week — tabloid publishes incorrect gossip, report gets picked up everywhere, subject of story sets record straight, original stories don’t get updated, damage remains done.

      • Auntlou says:

        re Anne’s comment and a Mr. Roy being behind this registration – Roy is old French for “king”. Sounds like a pseudonym to me…

    • Crowned Huntress says:

      Unfortunately Piers has already begun his stalking and harassment quest overseas. He’s since been on Entertainment Tonight special about H&M and also The Talk which I believe is due to his friendship with Sharon Osbourne. No one his challenging him on his clear obsession with Meghan either. I hope the American public isn’t poisoned against them too

    • pineapple says:

      In Canada we have very concentrated ownership of media also. It is so, so, so dangerous. Control the media you control the message. Like Facebook … it is okay to lie to throw elections? Media these days, true reporters are the unsung heroes of our time.

    • MsIam says:

      Piers is not popular in the US though. Plus he’s known for being nasty, like a poor mans Simon Cowell.

      • KellyRyan says:

        PM was fired or released from his contract with CNN, extremely low ratings. He is nasty, unreadable, unwatchable, state side.

      • Shoshone says:

        Trying to respond to Kellyryan here. No one in the US really watched PM when he was on CNN. They either did not watch or did not care or they were “Piers who”? When he was released no one even noticed. It had to be really, really difficult for a (probable) narcissist like Piers. He was simply irrelevant.

        I think, though, that if PM brands himself as a right wing conservative and manages to get on FOX he actually has a good chance of being noticed this time. Remember, on FOX the bar for journalism is set pretty low. Also, FOX would probably be much better than CNN at advertising and promotion. I wonder if H&M’s lawsuit could potentially throw a wrench into Piers’ plans? Being caught up in another media inquiry could possibly keep him off FOX- at least in any kind of headline capacity.

      • KellyRyan says:

        As I remember PM was scheduled to replace Larry King who was failing due to health problems. PM was unable to capture an audience. Ratings for Fox news are low, (advertisers on decline). Murdoch with his personal agenda against the US doesn’t care. The entertainment end more than compensates for Fox news failure. I live in one of the last three areas of red prominence in CA. All three are on the cusp of turning blue. Take a glance at the WH employees who left believing they would have a career with Fox and didn’t. Hope Hicks, the most recent. (Answer to Shoshone).

      • Le4Frimaire says:

        Piers was terrible on CNN. He was fawning and fake with celebrities and his show was boring. Maybe Fox will hire him, but he started going on an anti-2nd amendment soapbox while at CNN, which will not sit well with the MAGA crowd at Fox. Heard his little Oscar show was a total flop, and he can’t attack women ad nauseam the way he does in UK. He’s useless.

  2. Ali says:

    March 31 cant come soon enough for me.

    The only issue I have is this stupid one year review. The Prince and Princess of Kent already do what the Sussexes want to do so what is the big deal?

    • Harla says:

      That’s why the Sussex’s made a point of saying others do it but we have to have a one-year review??? I see that they left out WTF? but in my mind it’s there :)

    • Well if the Sussexes are completely financially independent by then the only hold the Firm will have over them is that the level of security they must have has to have access to government. All I can say is ‘beware the Ides of March 2021.’

      • Guest2.0 says:

        But the question then is, will the BRF do everything in their power behind the scenes to sabotage the H&M’s efforts towards financial independence. Will they pressure businesses, media, corporations to not work with the Sussexes?

      • I agree Guest 2.0. Security at the level they have to have it is a big playing card for the Firm, unfortunately.

      • ADS says:

        @JA, They are huge targets for all kinds of extremist groups and that actually puts the UK (as well as the monarchy) at a disadvantage, so there would be no point threatening them with that. I.e. if – god forbid – they and /or their child were kidnapped, the UK is then over a barrel and whoever has them has massive leverage. That is part of why I never understood people jumping on the whole ‘take away their security’ bandwagon in the first place. Their security is not a personal perk, it’s a necessity for UK national security.

      • Becks1 says:

        @ADS – agree completely. It reminds me of the “nightmare scenario” from West Wing, where Bartlett is telling Zoe that the Secret Service’s biggest fear is Zoe being kidnapped and held hostage. The government is going to protect Harry, Meghan and Archie because no one wants the monarch’s grandson (Harry or Archie down the line) being kidnapped and held for ransom. I know that sounds extreme but its a real fear. The protection isn’t about making sure people don’t throw eggs at them as they walk down the street, but that’s part of it, sure. It’s about the national security interests of the UK.

    • Heather says:

      This sounds more like something the Queen requested, or perhaps Charles. It just sounds like such a parent/grandparent thing to ask: “Can you please give a year to be sure this is what you really want to do? Can we revisit this in a year, just in case it’s not?”
      And, frankly, I see nothing wrong with the review. (As told by a parent who’s child decided to drop out of university, but pleaded with him to just take a year off)

  3. Gm says:

    It will be interesting to see the interactions when they return in in March. Wonder if they bring Archie? Personally if I were MH I would be extra fabulous to show everyone what they are missing.

    • VS says:

      I hope their time, especially Meghan’s time in the UK, is super short. Doria can help with Archie for a few days or any of their friends can………I want Meghan out of that country as fast as possible where the loud people are racists, sexists and underachievers and white mediocrity is praised . The despicable Trump called some countries shit hole countries, he only forgot to include the UK in it. I am still waiting for the ‘non racists’ British to say something; A few are speaking out online, and if you notice most of them are minorities……..

      If I were her, I would not go back. Harry can deal with his family alone………..anyway Meg is out; she should let those people destroy themselves with Brexit!

      • Enny says:

        I wouldn’t bring Archie back to the UK if I were them. It’s not just Harry who is in the line of succession to the throne – Archie is, too. Meaning legally his guardian and custodian is the monarch. I doubt they were able to negotiate that away during the “Sussexit Summit.” If Liz is this petty about using the word “royal” for branding purposes, you think she’s above blocking Archie from leaving the country again?

      • Nev says:

        WORD.
        If I were her I wouldn’t go back either. Why all the pretending to accept her and them as a couple just for it to be like this? Trifling.

      • YaGotMe says:

        @ Enny – that has been debunked repeatedly. The TQ is not in any way Archie’s guardian and has no ability whatsoever to hold him hostage in the UK.

      • VS says:

        I don’t care…..Meghan is american and if the queen thinks she is so powerful, she should try to take Archie away from his mother! I doubt she is that dumb

      • Enny says:

        @Yago you are correct, in that it does not extend to great-grandchildren of the monarch. I misspoke. It has been an area of great confusion, though, with many reporting that it does, and many reporting that it does not! Even reputable publications have recently been reporting that there could be custody issues. Not from Liz, apparently. Charles May be another matter, but let’s hope not. Apologies for confusing myself and others!

      • YaGotMe says:

        @ Enny – no worries! There has been soooooo much coming out in such a short time and I almost need a flow chart to keep things straight. Happy Sunday!

      • VS —- I’m an American and I don’t think my country is looking so good right now. But I also don’t think that makes the USA a shithole. Can we not oversimplify this and call Britain —and thus every single person in that country — names. There are many wonderful people in Britain.

      • VS says:

        @JA Lowcountry Lady ——- I am american as well. We aren’t looking good at the moment but on the topic of race, at least we aren’t hiding our head in the sand. Do we have a Piers Morgan in the US free to hate? yes we have fox news with their BS but to every Fox news ‘journalist’, there is an MSNBC one
        Where are the NYT, WP, Boston Globe or CNN? So far in the UK, the FT and the Economist are reputable but probably read by a select few. The Guardian is also not bad, the rest is all tabloids; TMZ like……….

        I am sure there are wonderful people in Britain, of course they are. The Hubb ladies or Luminary Bakery ladies or Smartworks and Mayhew crew. I do know some in the city as well, so yes you are right, I oversimplified but the press is a pretty good representation of part of the UK. Those trashy tabloids make money because people buy THEM

      • Lara says:

        please delete

      • Mara says:

        VS – If you are looking for non-right wing, non-racist media in the UK then the first stop is the BBC which has scores of TV channels, radio stations and online services. If you look at the distribution/viewership figures you should find that the BBC gets at least four to five times the eyes on it as the tabloid trash.

        Then as well as The Guardian, Economist and FT there is The Independent, Channel 4, New Statesman, The New European and to some extent City A.M. I’m sure there are more but I can’t think of any more of the top of my head.

        Oh – I just remembered, there is also The Metro

      • Mara says:

        Just remembered – there’s also The Metro (don’t know how I forgot that paper seeing as they’re littered over every train and bus in London)

      • Sara says:

        @VS – just because people don’t say something online doesn’t mean they’re racist. Social media is such a downfall of society. Like you don’t exist or have a viewpoint because you don’t post it online. Yikes. There are racists in every single country and there are decent people in every single country. Homogenizing an entire nation of people is in line with Trumpism.

      • VS says:

        @Lara —-
        1) the BBC, isn’t it one of their own who compared Archie to a chimp?
        2) isn’t it the BBC who couldn’t tell the difference between LBJ and KB?
        3) isn’t the clip with a racist lady circulating all over internet about foreigners / whomever she could blame for the issues in the UK?

        @Sara —–
        I actually don’t think SM is the downfall of society. a lady on twitter @freepeeper was the one who spearheaded the #SussexGlobalBabyShower……so SM can be used for good! #Sussexsquad just circulated another fund raising opportunity for someone who wanted to attend the Invictus Games.
        The anonymity allowed by the internet is one of the causes of all of this. If people knew their employer or neighbor could see what they post online, do you think they would still post it?

        Human beings love to blame stuffs, anything they can point at is to blame except themselves of course!
        Personal responsibility has been thrown out of the window with the advent of the Internet………

        Trump is despicable but at least we all know he is a liar. He is not pretending to be more than the idiot he is; like I see some trying to twist themselves in pretzels to defend the indefensible!!!

        The new defense line of the internet: it is worse in another country, so be happy to see ‘less’ racism here…..racism can be replaced with any other ISMs that exist out there

      • Katherine says:

        Please stop with the queen/monarch is the custodian/guardian. This is been debunked repeatedly. In 1717 King George 1 had a squabble with his son over how his grandchildren were being raised. He issued a Royal prerogative. It’s not and never was a legally binding Act of Parliament. And would be impossible to legally enforce in the modern court system. Regardless of how “powerful” the monarch is. That wouldn’t actually factor in to modern family court proceedings. It’s archaic and not at all applicable to modern life, including royal modern life. People need to stop fetishizing the royal family legal anachronisms. They are mostly powerless and not legally above most laws. They may choose to do lots of things as a family standard but they’re subject to legal and court proceedings like everyone else. Including custody of minor children.

      • Mara says:

        VS – Agree with your view on social media, technology is a tool that people use for good and evil and both have come from the use of social media.

        Just to respond to your points on the BBC – they rightfully fired Danny Baker immediately after the chimp tweet and obviously there is no excuse for the LBJ and KB mix up.

        The BBC is not perfect by any means but for the most part they are a good, impartial source of quality news and therefore I tend to believe that they and other organisations who let also let these things happen (see NYT’s anti-semetic cartoon and Indophobic coverage as well as MSNBC’s suspect exclusion of Andrew Yang from it’s democratic candidate coverage) they should be criticised and urged to correct rather than be inaccurately condemned as the equivalent of Fox News.

      • Lady D says:

        Mara, the dude who was fired was re-hired two weeks later. Nobody said a word.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “2) isn’t it the BBC who couldn’t tell the difference between LBJ and KB?”

        What is LBJ?

        What is KB?

        I do not think you meant Lyndon Baines Johnson!!! LOL! LOL!

      • Gingerbee says:

        @BTB, LBJ is LeBron James and KB Kobe Bryant.

    • Tee says:

      Girl yessssss! Hair and wardrobe on fleek. Personality turn up . smiling and living my best life.

  4. Sierra says:

    I am so tired off the royal fighting and Brexit.

    I want something nice to look forward to here in UK.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      Yup. It’s like multiple incredibly vicious “divorces”, all playing out at the same time. So exhausting!

  5. Aa says:

    To me this emphasized how much they’re leaving had to with British media on every platform insisting and feeding to the public that they owned rights to Archie because of tax money. We talk about how Harry sees his mother’s treatment for Meghan, but the bigger trigger is seeing how his son’s treatment by the palace and the media would mirror his own. Harry knows what it is to grow up as the scapegoat. Originally when Andrew was finally forced out by his own stupidity I though that might make things easier for Meghan since she wouldn’t be stuck sitting next to Andrew for decades if they stayed in the firm. But it appears it also made the double standard so obvious I don’t know how anyone with self-respect could.comtimue after watching the Queen on down protect Andrew. Imagine Harry’s rage at being blocked from speaking to the Queen directly, while they still regularly allow Andrew to be photographed going to church and riding with the Queen.

    • Maevo says:

      I totally agree about Archie’s arrival being the straw that broke the camel’s back. I think H & M were willing to put up with a lot but not when it came to their child. It’s pretty messed up for these kids when you think about it. I mean poor George as the heir – his life is literally not his own. Sure he’ll have lots of privilege but he belongs to the institution.

  6. Val says:

    Us black women are even more powerful than we think! The mere presence of Meghan shook these flaky, racists, inbreds to the core of their being. Honestly, I’m glad this is all happening out in the open. Let the world see how strong we are black women, and that people are so threatened by us that they are willing to go to extreme measures to dim our light. But we’re fighters, we are warriors, and Meghan is no different!

  7. Kath2 says:

    I think something else is happening here, beyond a horrible racist media, a brother saying nasty things at the wedding, and a father conveniently throwing H&M under the bus to bolster his own popularity. I think Harry knows something (William’s cheating, hypocrisy and smearing to the press?) and now it’s all out war.

    That being said, I think this is all getting awful and making a post about it was a mistake. Harry, in particular, needs to take a break and focus on his mental health. (And I say that as a person with similar issues).

    In all the attacks on Harry, people seem to forget that the guy also did two tours of Afghanistan, as well as have the childhood from hell. PTSD is no joke and I wish H&M would take a break from the toxicity and not engage for a while. I’m not sure they can prevail against both the media and the RF.

    They need to let the feeding frenzy die down and let people realise that the royal family sucks without them and is full of toxic arseholes. Let them show themselves up without engaging (e.g. the tone deaf celebration of Andrew’s bday).

    To be honest, I don’t think their posts on social media are helping their cause. For a while there, the Daily Fail had NO information with which to feed their troll army and they were reduced to taking pictures of fences to try and get clicks. Now the frenzy has started all over again. I know H&M obviously feel they need to defend themselves, but I wish they had better advisers…

    • VS says:

      so your solution is to have H&M just take it! every racist, sexist, xenophobic post thrown their way, they should just let people do it because they should be above it all; they are super humans who should understand other people’ life sucks therefore they should be happy to become a punchy bag for them! the HELL NO

      If people can’t deal with the misery in their life, hoping hating someone else would make it better, they are about to get it real! March 31st can come here fast enough; all those haters would need another target because the latest outrage is how H&M disrespected the same queen who has no issue parading her pedo son to church!

      I guess the British really have the RF they deserve. Glad we kicked those people to the curb!

      • Lara says:

        VS can I ask what country you’re from that magically doesn’t have any racism? Yes Britain is really showing itself – I am ashamed of my country and what is happening here but let’s not pretend it’s better in the US.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Lara

        I actually think a large portion of the racism we’re seeing is being served up specifically for the much larger US market. Imagine commentators used to serving just the UK market suddenly having the Fox News market as a new consumer of your product (racism in a can)……easily 10 to 20 times their traditional market in UK.

      • Sarah says:

        Not engaging and “just taking it” are very different things.

      • VS says:

        @Lara ——– I am from the US; I will tell you the difference between the US and the UK

        1) we here admire hard work; we celebrate those who pull themselves from “nothing” and make something out of their life. nothing in quotes is appropriate because we sometimes forget that some get major boost from their family or parents’ money (talking about Trump here for instance; by the way Trump is not a Billionaire; i saw that lie here in another post )

        2) we have a lot of racists in the US; a lot of them. Our past and present are filled of them BUT we never pretend NOT TO BE RACISTS. We talk about it sometimes using disgusting language and it is a subject that comes up in our day to day lives. We acknowledge it and don’t try to bury it.

        3) We have respectable newspapers and channels. My goodness, can one even imagine a TMZ gossiper on CNN? but in the UK that seems perfectly normal

        4) Minorities would have never allowed the way Meghan was treated in the UK in the US. NEVER!!! the BS would have been called much earlier on. Trump lost an entire working group made up of CEOs of various companies because of his racist comments about Charlottesville

        etc….

        The conclusion is trivial from here on

      • Guest2.0 says:

        @ Bella DuPont. I also think the plan is to transfer the “racism in a can” wholesale to the U.S. via Fox News. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News as well as the most racist and rabid U.K. tabloids. He’s not gonna allow his cash cows, Meghan and Harry, to escape his grasp so easily. One can expect the RRs, Piers Morgan, etc. to start peddling their nonsense on Fox News soon. Sussex supporters better get in formation and get ready to do battle with Fox News.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Guest 2.0

        Such a scary proposition, but looks like that’s where we’re heading. I honest to God can’t wait for the demise of that entire organization, and most especially Rupert Murdoch himself, the real life (much worse) Mr Burns from the Simpsons. Pure evil.

      • Pineapple says:

        Guest 2.0 “racism in a can”??????????? That is one of the best turn of phrases I have seen in awhile. XO

      • Marg says:

        UHHHH VS, you mention that no one would ever be allowed to be treated that way here and gave the example of trump not using strong enough words abt Charlottesville and losing some ceo’s. Lol sure OK but also TRUMP IS OUR PRESIDENT. His first viral campaign moment thatade him so popular was literally him saying all Mexicans are rapists and so we need to build a wall bw the US and mezico. He was heard on tape admitting to the fact that he takes adv of the fact that he’s rich enough to get away with sexual assault whenever he wants. He enacted a wholesale ban on anyone from certain countries coming into the US, and all of those countries happen to be majority Muslim. And he’s currently working on expanding the ban. Oh and hia administration goes out of its way to separate immigrant kids from the their families.
        I’m sorry but it’s laughable if you think this country is any better.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      I actually agree with you. The Sussexes absolutely need to disengage for a good while now. They NEEEED to stay above the fray (and yes, it will require superhuman efforts), but they cannot afford a bare knuckle brawl with this ancient, incredibly influential and *vicious* institution.

      Not while they’re still trying to build the foundations of something great. Between the family and the media, the determination to destroy them and their brand is immense and is becoming clearer and clearer and clearer by the day.

      • Maria says:

        Well said!

      • MeghanNotMarkle says:

        Absolutely. Disengaging and working on their marriage, family, and their foundation should be their priorities.

      • Anna says:

        Yes! And I believe they can do it. Harry might have a tendency to get pulled back in more given that it’s his family and he was born into that mess, but Meghan is so surefooted and together they are a loving, unified team. I only see amazing possibilities in their future.

    • Tee says:

      Girl bye. That’s b.s the toyal family has been leaking mess, telling lies and sabatoging their work. Meg and harry were defenseless for three years. Rf wouldn’t let them speak. That mess is over. The media and royal family attacked them all this time for 3 years when they were silent. It doesnt matter. Harry is not taking their b.s. anymore. That family is losers without harry. They know it that’s why they set up that 1 yr review sowhen they fall they can try to renegotiate with harry. But after the petty way they handle meg and harry exit that’s over. Harry ain’t ever coming back. The royal family have already shown themselves as racists bigots. Where you been?

    • Nic919 says:

      Putting out their side of the story is essential because the media is twisting everything that gets said. Only the people who don’t like them have an issue with them pushing back. Besides they aren’t putting out false information in this statement but clarifying lies put out by the tabloids.

      Staying quiet hasn’t helped them prior to now. It lead to the plans being leaked before they were finalized, lies being said about what they would be doing and other false information.

    • Amy Too says:

      They were just posting facts. There has been a ton of speculation in the media and on comments boards everywhere about what’s happening and why. Harry and Meghan told us not to believe anything unless it came from them, so they’re letting us know the facts. They didn’t editorialize them or write a blogpost about their feelings or anything. They gave out facts so that the reporting around them could be factual. I think it’s a good idea to get all this stuff out here now so the press can wring their hands about it and get over it by April, when they’ll probably come out with some information about their plans and their non-profit and what it’ll be called. That way, all the fuss about how it’s not Sussex Royal will be over by the time their new name comes out, and everyone can focus on the work they’re doing then rather than speculate about why the name changed.

      • VS says:

        @Amy Too —- don’t you know FACTS are bad……they should just be quiet!
        Meghan should really grab coffee with MO and SW. Those are two women who have done something that they weren’t supposed to. I hope while they do so, MO post it on SM. That will blow the racists’ head off

      • I totally agree with you AmyToo. Also — SussexGlobalCharities.com was copyrighted by Jessica Mulroney on Wednesday.

      • pineapple says:

        SussexGlobalCharities …. I love it.

      • Amy Too says:

        When they told everyone to not believe reporting unless it came from them, they set up the expectation that they would share information with people. Thus, people look to them for information because they told us they would supply it. If they just stayed out of it and never commented on things, they would be going back on what they told us before. It might also lead people to believe that the stories in the paper are either all completely made up gossip so the Sussexes didn’t feel the need to clarify the story, or that the stories in the papers were 100% true since the Sussexes weren’t challenging them with the truth.

        They want the reporting about them to be truthful. They don’t want to escape all reporting and live a reclusive and totally private life. They still want to be public figures just with accurate reporting. When they make their own statements there is a continuous source of factual and accurate information for both the press and their fans to work off of. I think they, Meghan especially, realize that their fans are going to want to defend them and that their fans feel connected to them, so they want their fans to have accurate information with which to counteract lies and media spin. I think it’s clear that they really appreciate the fan support they’ve gotten—these are the same people who will make donations to their non profit, buy any future books, watch any future documentaries, listen to any future interviews and podcasts—and they don’t want their fans to feel shut out or abandoned, like they’ve been left to just guess at what’s going on, or for fans to feel stupid for defending them against things that actually end up being true (like renaming their nonprofit).

    • Marie says:

      Kath2 , Harry and Meghan could disappear for 10 years and the media treatment would be the same. The British media are OBSESSED with them. That will never change. What Harry did was to remove himself and his family from a very toxic situation. That shows how serious he takes his mental health. I am sure they know the treatment will always be toxic but come April 1st, I think they can get a better handle on it. I also like the statement they made. They are frustrated( and rightly so) It was shade but in the most polite way. I don’t think the British media are used to two people standing up for themselves.

      • Pineapple says:

        Marie … THIS!!!!!

        Meg and Harry could disappear for a decade … they will still be lied about in some papers.

        I LOVE the honest, intelligent presentation of facts. I understand why it might confuse some people. XO Absent of racist, misogynistic tones and all.

      • L4frimaire says:

        I think up until that statement they’ve tried to stay out of it. I read the full statement and it was very pointed but wasn’t disrespectful. I don’t think they’ll be tangling with the British Media much once they have officially stepped down. The fact is the media don’t want to let them go, don’t want them speaking for themselves and pushing back, and will keep up with the negative stories. I don’t think the Sussexes will get too mired in it because they ha e real things to focus on.

    • They need to state their truth clearly and in an unedited format which they do on their website. Otherwise it is all rumors and lies. Nothing in the info they just released is exceptionally personal except what they say about their BP staff.

    • Jaded says:

      @Kath2: Running away and hiding is never an option. The British media will still hound them no matter how quiet they become, then start bashing them as being lazy wankers. No, they’ve shown the world they’re not going to take the racist dragging, threats to their lives, scheming from William and the ROTAs, etc. and deliberately removed themselves from the toxic soup of the BRF to a place of relative calm and safety where they can do their OWN work without interference.

    • Nan says:

      It always looks to me like the queen won’t abide anyone coming into her family who tries to stay happy or free, maybe because she had to face up to her duty and give up a lot upon her father’s death and her becoming queen. Any woman who becomes a royal by marriage, it seems like the queen wants to see suffering and sacrifice, as if that is the only proper way to be royal. Meghan, like Harry’s mother Diana, married for love, not for duty or ambition, so the queen seems to be extra-snippy about that. Meghan wasn’t just out of childhood at the time of her marriage, either, so she knows the real purpose of life is to be happy – not to exist in misery because it makes the queen feel better.

  8. STRIPE says:

    I’m confused, can some British Bitchies help me out?

    They just said there ARE rules around what can be “Royal” in the U.K. so is the argument that there are rules but because H&M are still part of the royal family they should be able to use it?

    Also why are they retaining their titles? I don’t understand the benefit of this half in/half out arrangement for them. If they want total control, why don’t they make a clean break? Are they not allowed to?

    • VS says:

      You are still confused? wow, I am impressed, I really am!
      I am not british, so I hope some who are can help with your ‘confusion’!

      • Ang says:

        It’s a little early to be such a rude c*%#

      • VS says:

        BS…..I am all for debates but not stupid ones!!!

      • STRIPE says:

        I’m not debating anyone. I don’t understand how we are saying here that they CAN use “Royal” but in the statement it says there are indeed rules. I’m just trying to understand the nuance there. I was also very unclear as to why, after all of this, they still wanted to be HRH/duke and duchess and not just 100% break away. It’s not a debate. I’m just asking.

      • Lady D says:

        I think they need/want the HRH to help build and grow their foundation. Plus, it is Harry’s birthright. I don’t think the press should be allowed to remove it from him, which is what they are trying to do.

    • YaGotMe says:

      In a nutshell – I think – there are rules about the use of “Royal” but those wouldn’t be enforceable outside of the UK, maybe Commonwealth nations but I doubt it. So yea, kinda rules but nothing that couldn’t be worked around and the only way it would be an issue is if TQ pressed it legally (is what I gather). So they agreed to that, though it doesn’t seem like it was a happy compromise.
      Their titles were bestowed by the Monarch and cannot be removed without Parliament and surely no one wants to go there.
      There is no half in/ half out….they offered to continue doing work for TQ and that offer seems to have been rejected.
      I don’t understand the 12 month ‘review’ at all.

    • Pinkgold says:

      Where are you getting half in half out? This is a break from their royal duty so they can work and earn their living not a break from his family. They are still part of the royal family but won’t be working for the firm. So the title remains but won’t use them in any official way. Harry is still 6th in line, and God forbid something happens to the cambridges, he will have no choice but to resume his royal responsibilities.

    • ElectricEELEEEEL says:

      Hey Stripe, it’s a good question. I’ve wondered the same thing. This is where I think the 12 month review is a good thing. If they change their minds that review can be utilized to restore everything.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Why should they lose their titles, which can only be removed by Act of Parliament? Has rapist, pretending not to be a working royal Andrew lost his title? Harry and Meghan remain royals, remain HRH, retain the Sussex title. Like many other working or not working royals have their titles, but it is only a problem for certain people because it is Harry and Meghan?

      Sussex is their married name, that’s how it works in this family. When they married, Harry stopped being Prince Henry of Wales. He remains HRH Prince Henry, in addition to being HRH Duke of Sussex, but he’s not ‘of Wales’ any longer. If he were back in the military, the name on his uniform would be ‘Sussex’ not ‘Wales’ ‘Mountbatten-Windsor’ or ‘Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’ for that matter.

      They were going to use their last name for their work and charity work. Oh the horrors.

      Meanwhile, HRH Princess Beatrice *of York* and HRH Princess Eugenie *of York*, HRH Prince and Princess Michael *of Kent* continue to use their royal titles and royal-related last names to earn money. And Sarah Ferguson, Duchess *of York* and her many many failed money-making attempts all focusing on her being royal-adjacent and her ‘royal’ last name of York.

      But remember, these ‘laws’ and ‘rules’ only apply to Harry and Meghan because they’re expected to be too successful for Betty, Charlie, and Billy to handle.

    • Amy Too says:

      About using “royal:” apparently there are technically rules, enforceable only inside the U.K., about who can and cannot use the word “royal” in their branding. These rules, along with rules about using your HRH when you’re making private money for yourself outside of the firm, exist, but don’t ever seem to be enforced for any of the other members of the family, which is why it seems petty that the queen is insisting that the Sussexes follow every single rule or bit of odd protocol, when she either doesn’t expect anyone else to, or she doesn’t go after them when they break the rule or protocol. Since she is the person who would have to sue to enforce these laws, all of these decisions are up to her and only her. She’s demanding the Sussexes follow the exact letter of the law when no one else is expected to.

      • Chelle says:

        Although it’s totally hypocritical for QEII and her minions to do this, in a backhanded way, I am happy that she’s doing it. Harry and Meghan will be scrutinized from the rootah to the tootah and every crevice in between will be served up on a platter for public consumption. However, by playing by QEII’s rules and still being successful that turns into a big F-you to the haters. Plus, no one can say she played favorites.

        I do believe the palace is trying to curb or control the level of success that Harry and Meghan can go on to have—even though I see benefits to H/M re: the one year review stipulation. The fear I think is that on a global scale they are poised to eclipse QEII’s heirs ans once they have “untouchable” wealth the palace loses all leverage [read control]. Once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back inside.

        Finally, once people start poking around in H/M’s projects and holdings what’s not to say the holdings of any member of the BRF wouldn’t be on the table. Remember the uproar a few year back about QEII or Charles having offshore accounts?

      • Spikey says:

        I agree with Chelle. I understand that it hurts on a personal level but strategically losing the “Royal” is the way to go. How long would it take for some rag to twist the argument?`As long as they have any links left to their family they will be used as fodder for the masses.

        The more I read about this mess the more I come to the conclusion that Harry and Meghan are the victims of some very f*cked up, complex circumstances. Do I believe that Charles made himself look good on their back? Yes. Do I believe that there is some serious jealousy from Kensington Palace? Absolutely. Do I believe that the hangers-on (Princess of Michael, Lainey’s term) threw in some toxicity here and there? Yes. But, personally, I’m convinced that *a lot* of this comes from the Yorks and the family’s decision to rather sacrifice their “weakest link” than risk a public debate about the real skeletons in their closets. I am AMASED how little flack Andrew and the Queen got. Flubbergasted. To me, this is a strong cui bono case. And yes, even with all their global popularity, Harry and Meghan are… “spares” in terms of the long game. That might not be smart, but … do I think theses people are smart? … nah.

  9. Pinkgold says:

    I keep reading this “entitled” Some are pushing, especially from British media and ignorant citizens or dailyfail crew. For two years if not, more, the royal family continue to feed the racist media lies about them to sew hate. They are actively being thrown to the vipers to cover every single of the royal family. At what point are they allow to defend themselves? The entire British royal family is built on entitlements. They were all born into a family that stole from others and rule over them. While the racist family, racist and corrupt media, and continue to put their lives in danger, I hope they continue to speak up. Harry knows his family is trash. The entire British family at the moment is pure trash.

  10. Becks1 says:

    They’re retaining their titles bc they were given to them by the Queen. Being titled has nothing to do with being a working royal or not.

    • Pineapple says:

      Um …. IF Andrew can retain HIS titles I think a Royal snail or caterpillar should be allowed to. This is all an absolute joke. Racism in a can … as Guest 2.0 would say.

      • Becks1 says:

        I agree? This comment posted in the wrong place but was directed at someone up above questioning why they still had their titles. They cant just be taken away from them.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Its also important to note that they are KEEPING HRH, if TQ was truly pissed at them she’d remove it.

      It is unfair about the use of ‘royal’ and the Sussex’s are quite right to feel aggrieved as the Princes’ Michael and the York girls use HRH and are not working members of the family who support The Queen – thou am sure the Michaels would LOVE to.

      Once 31st March happens the press battles will be telling as to WHO has been behind this ‘must destroy the Sussex’s’ campaign. While I think that Andrew has been one force behind it (esp given the story the Fail has on him today), I think most of the nasty drama has been coming from the Cambridges. They have been very visible recently which is not usual for them this time of year – also the sudden new narrative they are pushing out is suspect IMO. There is a smugness to them that is rubbing me the wrong way – the court case will be interesting. Even if the truth is covered by am sure it will find a way into the public domain.

      I don’t think Harry is going to take this lying down – if his brother is behind this he will find a way to make it known. He has already made is clear he won’t allow his family to be treated the same way his mother was.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I want their Fail lawsuit to reveal how much the Fail has paid Sperm Donor, and to reveal where leaks came from (KP, W&K, Carole).

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        I wonder if the keeping of the HRH, is part of that “we’ll review the situation in a year” thing? I wonder if Her Maj actually thinks she’s offering a carrot with that, along with the public backtracking on the military stuff?

        Having “divorced my family of origin”, I see a similar pattern to what H&M are setting in motion here.

        This “year of review” – if they were not royal, or celebrities, this would be the “low contact” phase. I believe this “year of review” is as much H&M’s evaluation of the BRF as the Queen’s of them.
        In other words, I am of the opinion that H&M at the Sandringham Summit set some new hard boundaries with The Fam/Firm, and maybe even challenged Charles to man up and support his own family; and whether the BRF respects them or not will determine how H&M proceed. I think if the BRF continues to show it’s collective backside on the subject of H&M to the media, we’re going to see “no contact” enacted in a year’s time. As in, “Take your titles, honorifics, and line of succession, WE are out”.

        Charles is the Shadow King at the moment. He has power to flex if he chooses. He has the power to put William on notice. He has the power to APOLOGIZE for everything that went down (including the leak to Wooten – KP didn’t get that straight from Harry, it came via CH). Charles is non confrontational by nature, but he can CHOOSE to overcome that to build bridges. He can CHOOSE to put the leaking courtiers on notice. If he doesn’t, that’s a choice too.

  11. Rae says:

    I think that’s the crux: the “grey men” and the press don’t like the fact that neither Harry nor Meghan will just take it lying down.

    How dare they make sure people know what both sides think! How dare they try and stop the tabloids from creating lies about them. How dare they. HOW.DARE.THEY!!

    Whilst everyone else with a ounce of common sense is like, “fair play to them”.

  12. YaGotMe says:

    I think they were originally going to keep SussexRoyal and build a foundation – at least those were the indications in the beginning.

    Something happened that sparked this latest round of ‘talks’ and I wonder if it was the meetings with JPM and GS? This just seems so out of the blue.

    • VS says:

      There was no latest round of talks…………it is the FIRST thing they clarified on their website……….isn’t it easy to open it and read it for yourself? I am amazed how we are bombarded by info 24-hour a day and it has made some unable to just read and parse it!
      It is on H&M website; CB even provided the LINK, so you don’t have to google it!

      • Lady D says:

        I can’t read it on their website, I have to have a Twitter account to see it. I must have missed the link Kaiser added.
        *I can read it on Kaiser’s link. Thanks for letting me know that, VS. I don’t know how I missed it.

    • YaGotMe says:

      I’ve read their site – when it originally came up with more detailed information following their IG statement and I have read the updates that came out over the weekend.

      I have no doubt that they continue to be in contact with the BRF about ongoing matters – security being a huge issue – and that they continue to work behind the scenes to flesh out how this is going to look.

      Dropping SussexRoyal and NOT creating a foundation, but rather a non profit is a change, I don’t see the issue in discussing what may have precipitated that change.

      • VS says:

        some have already explained it! the constraints of a foundation vs non-profit

        It won’t even make a difference because the first day they go live with it, it will create buzz, no matter what! I just hope the Non-profit is not based in the UK. It should be in the US or Canada…….the UK can deal with the cambridges foundation (good luck with that!)

        On security, they have also addressed it on their website….as far as I am concerned, once they are all set, they should NEVER set foot in the UK ever again

      • YaGotMe says:

        I have no doubt it will be wildly successful regardless of the organizational structure or the name for that matter.

        I’m speculating on what sparked the change that led to them not using SussexRoyal because I do believe that was the intention, as evidenced by the well executed website and based on the update, not being able to ( or agreeing to ) not use that moniker was not something they anticipated.

        So something changed – we just don’t know the motivating factors behind it.

      • Emmitt says:

        It was reported IN JANUARY they were not creating a foundation, but rather a non-profit. Even some of the royal reporters discussed it at the time.

    • Tee says:

      No harry said that wanted to release this earlier but the palace told them no yet the palace went ahead and release it. Shady. And its not JP morgan because william, charles , the queen and her nephew worked with jp Morgan before.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Given the hasty responses from both BP and the Sussex’s and all the mis information, I think this was leaked before it was ready to be announced. BP were as usual slow to react which further fuelled the press frenzy and when press releases were made it was too late as the damage was done.

      Out of interest, who broke the story? As whoever leaked it to the press knows they can do whatever they like and NO ONE will call them out on it. Hmm, who has recently sold their children to the press???

    • windyriver says:

      Could have to do with their visit to Stanford. One place they might have visited (Center for Social Innovation) is in the Graduate School of Business. The form their non-profit should take going forward could have been part of the “brainstorming” we heard about. Maybe they already had several ideas and needed input on what made the most sense for their situation, and what they ultimately want to accomplish.

    • MsIam says:

      Well not to be cynical but I’m thinking that money comes into it somehow. Weren’t there some questions about who would pay for security? Maybe that issue was resolved by H&M agreeing to drop the whole Sussex Royal deal in exchange. Or it could be some other thing that will now be covered. Listen, even though the media wants to drag this out, I think in reality Charles and TQ want this to quiet down ASAP. The longer it drags on, the more questions will be asked and the more fingers that will be pointed.

      • I hope that the Firm did not go sooooo low as to hold the Sussexes’ security needs as a bargaining chip. Would his grandmother, his father, and his only brother truly put Harry, Meghan, and Archie’s lives at risk? Sadly, I can actually see them using this as a bargaining chip.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The government decides who receives taxpayer security, not the Queen. Diana had taxpayer security after her divorce because the government decided she was a high-profile target. No matter how much the haters want the Sussexes to be vulnerable? They will have taxpayer paid security because the UK government will decide it is necessary.

      • Bella says:

        @notasugar
        So glad you clarified this – who gets protection is neither funded nor decided by the Queen. The government (on the advice of MI5 and MI6) assesses the level of security needed for anyone in the public eye who is serving/has served the public, and the taxpayers pay for it through our contribution to the Metropolitan Police and security services. Entirely separate from the Sovereign Grant (which is not taxpayers’ money either). The Commonwealth countries have a reciprocal arrangement – they share the cost of a foreign Commonwealth national. So Canadians will pay towards H&M’s security but we Brit pay towards the cost of prominent Canadians’ security as well.

      • carbnftprnt says:

        Their security was never up for discussion, remember the nazis sitting in prison because they were plotting to kill Harry. British media is evil, they would like them to lose security, like harry’s mother; and no we know what happened to her. the media said it to stir up more hatred towards them. SussexRoyal was not a bargaining chip because it’s nothing without Harry and Meghan. Not trying to be mean but yo’ure asking for clarification of the tabloid lies. It’s quite simple, if it’s not from Harry adn Meghan dont believe it

      • Iamcait says:

        Question for Bella – you said Canada pays for security if they’re in Canada. Since the US is not a commonwealth country does that automatically mean the couple must pay for it when they’re there? If not I can see why Canada would be a more attractive option…

      • Nic919 says:

        Canada isn’t paying for their security at least not right now.

    • Tina says:

      Someone on twitter said the Sussexxs withdrew the Sussexxroyal trademark back on January 14!!! So there was no review for the use of ” royal” as the firm and royal reporters would like you to believe! All of this crap was decided on back in January during that summit, but H and M were not allowed to speak on it. The firm is truly evil!

  13. Becks1 says:

    Their statement was terse. It was aimed at the royal family and the press. I don’t blame them for it though.

    I do think most of the ire is aimed at the press and how things are reported – the staff leaving, the trademarking of Sussex royal (which was completely in line with what the Cambridge’s did years ago, and the Sussexes started it before leaving), etc. they are definitely peeved that they cannot be PT royals, as there IS precedent for it as they note, but it seems clear that they have decided this is best for their family.

    • Nic919 says:

      It’s aimed at the leaky press, but that circles back to the courtiers who are leaking to Wootton and Becky English, so basically William.

      • carbnftprnt says:

        Yup. and the press knows that.; which explains why they’re ducking and pointing to ever one but themselves

  14. vanna says:

    I’d dump the Sussex from the charity name too now. Go with Harry and Meghan’s Foundation or something. BRF is horrible, I’d minimize any literal association. Their first names are well known enough, they don’t need to lean on the Sussex. Especially if the BRF continues to shit on them and may as well punish them further in the future and yank their duke & duchess titles. Charles cannot become king soon enough, I hope at that point he has some marbles left to correct the mistakes of the previous sovereign. *evil side-eye to BP*

    • VS says:

      I agree with you on dumping the Sussex name too…….H&M are known for their first name; very few people outside the UK know them as the Sussexes. For me, she will always be Meghan or Meg. Someone suggested Spencer-Ragland or Ragland-Spencer or more simply Harry & Meghan (I just realized they can go with H&M non-profit…)

      • vanna says:

        They could go with Mountbatten-Windsor Foundation (It is their non-royal last name I think?) and agitate the crown further, which would be funny to be. I doubt that they will go that way though. Btw I cannot wait for spring/summer 2021. I think they’ll spill some beans after the 12 month review date.

      • pottymouth pup says:

        I liked the Spencer-Ragland or Ragland-Spencer foundation name suggestion and really wish they’d think of doing that. It would be paying homage to their mothers/the women who instilled their idea of family and who showed them the power of being a advocate. It would also be the perfectly polite way to flip off the firm and the media

        I think they’d shy away from a short name of H & M foundation to avoid their branding being too close to that of a retail outlet

      • VS says:

        I meant to write they cannot go with H&M….sorry for the confusion. Indeed, it is probably already trademarked by H&M (the retail outlet)

      • ab says:

        Spencer-Ragland is a great suggestion!

      • Iamcait says:

        There’s always “M&H” 🤪

      • Pineapple says:

        NO!!!!!! I hope they keep Sussex. As a super petty human … I would have kept ROYAL as well. I applaud Meg and Harry for their restraint. At this point they should call the Non-Profit “Our Extended Family are Snakes”.

    • Bella says:

      I’d like the NPO to be called something like “Forces for Change – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex/Prince Harry and Meghan Markle”.
      This is not an actual suggestion, obviously – my point is that I want the name to focus on the work and the support they want to provide for charities and good causes. And also add their names to it. Their “brand” is them – their personal authentic desire to help wherever they can. They have a talent for initiatives which excite people and fulfil a need. A propos of that, since the announcement about the meetings in Edinburgh, I now know what the Travalyst initiative is – previously I was unable to discern it from the website. Info – presumably an app? – which enables you to choose your holiday destination and the means of travel based on environmental impact factors. Genius.

  15. KellyRyan says:

    I’ll continue to see the value of hope for H&M. It would be terrific to see a complete exit by the end of year. I feel secure in saying, H&M have an attorney who has a clause in the contract, “H&M willingly give up the use of SussexRoyal on condition, no one else within or without the BRF can use it.” We’re well aware, William the Terrible and Vacuous Kate will do anything in an attempt to maintain superiority over H&M. Toxic f****!

  16. Aurora says:

    The picture the Sussexes are painting is that there is a precedent for everything they are doing yet for some reason ( i.e. Will’s ego and jealousy) they are being policed unlike any other royal couple.

    It also seems that the Sussexes are constantly being told to to hold off reporting info long enough for the Palace to leak it to the press with a negative slant.

    Harry has to know at this point that his family is actively trying to undermine him and his wife. I don’t see him ever returning to the fold.

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      That’s exactly what it looks like. I’m hoping in a year’s time they’ll come to the table and say “We don’t need you. See ya.”

    • Belli says:

      “It also seems that the Sussexes are constantly being told to to hold off reporting info long enough for the Palace to leak it to the press with a negative slant.”

      I can’t imagine how infuriating that must be. Take the whole “royal” thing for example. If that was decided a while back and they were told not to announce… And then this week they see endless headlines about the Queen BANNING them from using it and then the follow up of evil defiant Meghan saying they’re going to use it anyway?!

      It really does read as the palace telling them not to go public so the negative narrative can be set out behind the scenes and briefed to the press first.

      • Marie says:

        I agree Belli. The damage is already done because the haters now think Harry and Meghan want to print t shirts, mugs and calendars with their face on them to make money. They don’t care what their website says. It’s incredibly frustrating.

      • MsIam says:

        So funny that people are “appalled” at the idea of H&M selling things when you can buy all kinds of Royal family sh!t on line at the Official Royal Gift shop, lol! I can’t even with these folks. Smh.

      • VS says:

        @MsIam ——- I don’t think most of those haters even grab the irony of it all!

    • Amy Too says:

      That’s definitely what’s happening but I want to know WHY. We keep being told that the queen and Charles’ number one job and priority is to make the RF look good and perpetuate the monarchy forever and ever. But they have to know that they look horrible doing stuff like this. They’re pissing off everyone who likes the Sussexes, all of those new followers of the royal family, and a good portion of old followers who always loves Harry and really loved that he found Meghan, those people who were actually spending their own money and time to support the Sussexes and their projects. The people who suddenly liked Charles bc he walked Meghan down the aisle. Those people in the U.K. and common wealth who thought maybe the RF wasn’t so racist and elitist.

      The idea that they’re punishing the Sussexes to make the RF and/or Cambridge fans happy seems stupid because the Cambridges and RF don’t have true fans. They have people who “like them more” than the Sussexes. But those people don’t contribute money, they don’t support their causes, they won’t even take a stupid 5 question survey to support “the good duchess.” Their “fans” are only their “fans” because they hate the Sussexes and like that there are people making their lives miserable. Their “fans” don’t actually love or respect the queen, Charles, or Cambridges. They’re going with a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” sort of thing.

      So what’s the point of all of this punishment and petty behavior on the part of the Queen? It’s not what’s best for the monarchy. It’s definitely not what’s going to get Meghan and Harry to come back in a year. It really seems like it’s just to lash out: we’re watching a private family feud play out in an extremely public way, to the detriment of the RF as an institution, when apparently the RF’s one and only goal and consistent modus operandi in the past has been to not make any waves and not enforce the “rules” previously for any of the many other royals who were breaking them because they didn’t want to draw any attention to themselves. The queen is famous for just letting everyone do their own thing and not letting anything get to her. What is different now? Is she senile? Is she letting Andrew make all the decisions? Is she letting her fussy and angry courtiers make all the decisions? Does she even know what’s going on? Just…. WHY?

      • Aurora says:

        In short, both Will and Charles are jealous of the Sussexes global popularity and trying to reign it in by policing their activities and undermining them with negative press.

      • Becks1 says:

        @AmyToo – I wish I could like all your comments today. I’m with you 100%. This is making the RF look awful and the last time they looked this bad was around the time of Diana’s death. It’s taken Charles 20 years to rehabilitate his image and camillas image, and everyone is starting to look really bad now.

        There is enough info trickling out that is confirming what we have been saying for months – William is actively working against Harry in the press. He looks petty and selfish and I think that’s only going to get worse.

    • Eyfalia says:

      William wants them gone, but he realised that he will not get rid of them, so he will destroy everything popping up from these two. He will check every name, every connection these two make and will sabotage it. He cannot win and that drives him mad. The press licking his boots. I wish Harry and Meghan would not come to the UK.

      • notasugarhere says:

        William didn’t want them gone. He wanted them hamstrung, under his boot, and forced to work less and on low-profile things. What he doesn’t want is them free to be successful on a global stage, with him looking like a petty bitch to everyone outside the royal rota.

    • Agree Aurora. — they are told to stay silent while everyone else in the family leaks it. Trouble is the rest of them don’t leak the truth — they spin it to make the Sussexes look bad. I am completely on board with the Sussexes stating their game plan on their website in a professional, controlled manner. It’s the sort of press release BP should be making but for the last few years All BP does is stay officially silent and unofficially nasty. This is true for KP and Clarence House as well. I’m sure the Sussexes are counting down the days untin 12:01am, April 1rst. 🥳.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      For me the big question is WHICH palace is leaking it? I really struggle to believe TQ or Chuck would do this as they MUST know how damaging it will look for them. TQ is old and has checked out, Chuck doesn’t have the balls to stand up to his eldest son or his brother. That leaves William, who is involved in these discussions – its obvious who is leaking and William the brat has never cared about the overall picture. He’s bitter enough to torch the whole institution to destroy his brother’s marriage – thats how I see it.

      Someone has been feeding the press hate and frenzy.

      • MsIam says:

        I think it’s Carole Middleton even more than William. Look how she pushed Kate to stick with that cheater. I think she knows no limits to get what she wants. Remember some of the quotes that were supposedly from her employees? They did not paint a pretty picture of her, indeed she seems pretty ruthless. You know it’s crazy, it’s not enough for her to have her daughter be queen consort and her grandson the king one day. Nothing Harry will ever do will change that. But it’s still not enough. And no I’m not giving Will a pass on this. But I think he is more of the pout and stamp his foot type. I think Carole, god help her is the one whispering in his ear, “you could do this, I have these contacts, hisssss…….”.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Carole is the one whispering in the ears of her MOS-connected PR hacks. So many different PR camps (BP, CH, KP, W&K, Carole), all leaking different things for different reasons.

      • Amy Too says:

        I agree with everyone else that the Cambridges and Middletons are leaking this information to make themselves look good, make the Sussexes look bad, and keep the press happy and distracted so they won’t report on the piles of crap going on with William, Kate, and their marriage. I also think Andrew leaks to keep himself out of the spotlight a bit (and I imagine he gets his mummy to tell him all kinds of stuff).

        But I want to know why the Queen is making such petty decisions in the first place. Why is she insisting they can’t use “Royal,” why did she decide they can’t be part time working royals when others are, why can’t they use their HRH when everyone else can? These types of decisions are what are making the RF look petty, vindictive, racist, and hateful and is going directly against the usual “don’t draw any attention to our issues, just live and let live so the monarchy will look as good as possible for as long as possible.” If these decisions weren’t being made, they couldn’t be leaked and spun so much. She didn’t enforce this kind of stuff in the past because it would’ve drawn a lot of attention, made the family look bad, and hurt her relationship with those members of her family. So why is she doing it with the Sussexes? Is it just because they’re so high profile and these types of questions are actually being asked about them when no one cared to ask about Fergie, Andrew, the York sisters, and prince and princess Michael of Kent? Or is the Queen herself actually super disturbed by and angry at Harry? Did he say something unforgivable? Did he threaten to tattle on all of them and spill the family secrets? Because she is acting like she DGAF about hurting them unforgivably and creating the maximum amount of problems for them. Why?

  17. Lizzie says:

    Why did the decree that they cannot use ‘Royal’ from Liz just come down and not at the January summit? My guess is the Windsor’s didn’t really believe how big this couple is globally and now they are getting it. They are use to putting out the word who is in or out of favor and the press carries it out. This just doesn’t work on a global scale in 2020. Megan and Harry are going to be huge and Liz can look petty or not. She chose to be petty and all the world sees it.

    • Dark and Stormy says:

      @Lizzie, It did come out in the January meetings but it’s just now being reported on.

      I read a bunch of reports last night and read the Sussexes statement. For whatever reason their spokesperson made the statement and then the Sussexes followed up. I’m not clear on why they waited to report it but I think there’s probably still much more coming. Maybe they have been directed to piecemeal this out? It’s definitely keeping people interested while they continue to put things together. I will be very surprised if Harry gets to hold on to anything in the end.

      • Leigh says:

        He’s not holding on to anything. They have already taken everything they can legally take without an act of Parliament. What’s left for them to take?

    • Dark and Stormy says:

      @Leigh, His income from his dad, his various charities such as Invictus, his titles, etc. There are still plenty of things to be taken from him and right now it looks like those things are that’s keeping him from going into a total free fall.

      • MsIam says:

        How could “they” take Invictus from him? That and Sentabale are not royal patronages. The only other thing they could take would be the QCT president and v-p positions. And he’s still Prince Harry regardless. People know that more than Sussex. So no, you don’t me with all these big wheeler dealers when you are in a free fall.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again with the Willam lies about Harry being fragile? Enough with the tumblr trope.

        They cannot take his 40 million in inheritance. They cannot take his taxpayer funded security because the government, not the Queen, decides who gets security. They cannot take Invictus or Sentebale. Harry founded those himself, on his personal time, outside of royal duties. Both are stand-alone non-profit organizations co-owned by people outside royal control.

      • Dark and Stormy says:

        @MsIam and Notasugarhere, Invictus’ main director is Harry’s former personal aid who now works at Kensington palace. Harry is a patron and a figurehead but I don’t see where he has any control over the board of trustees and right now at least one of those trustees is spending his days with the Cambridges. When they first started dividing the foundation I said conservation would immediately go to William and some people scoffed at that because it was viewed as Harry’s thing. Now when you go to the Royal Foundation website the first thing you see is a pic of William with great big letters “conservation”. William is strategically playing the long game. I think he’s going to put the entire foundation back together over the course of the year and welcome Harry back when he’s done but Meghan will not get the invite.

      • L4frimaire says:

        @Dark and stormy, I’m sorry but all your speculation hinges on William actually wanting to work. Put the foundation back together? Shouldn’t he have done that once the Sussexes split from them. Look he’s definitely wanting to shore up his influence as future king and play game of thrones because Charles will have short reign and undermining a Harry and Meghan are the only thing William has done with consistency and purpose. Why are him and Charles so obsessed with being popular and liked, then doing stuff that makes them repugnant? What makes you think Meghan or Harry want anything to do with his foundation? Why did they leave and plan on forming their own in the first place if everything was so great before?

  18. leigh says:

    I am glad they pointed out the inconsistencies. To stay silent holds no special virtue at this point in the game. Wills and the grey men were probably pushing for stripping as much as possible and I see H&M’s “terseness” as more a response to them than as disrespect to the Queen.

    But whoa. Way to go overboard Royal Family on pushing out the American, bi-racial outsider. We see you.

  19. Scollins says:

    My main concern is the security risk when back. There is much at stake with the lawsuits for the lying media if they lose. Millions of dollars at the very least. Plus the garbage RF has leaked consistently and will continue, they will not stop as the breaking away damages them all personally and the monarchy itself. It wouldn’t have gotten this bad if H&M’s family had stood up for them. Locations, dates and places leaks at this point are to be expected. Old Queen Petty has shown herself to be a racist, pedo-racist protector, Chuck and Bride of Chucky have never been good people with their treatment of Diana then there’s Will and Kate refusal to offer even one genuine word of support. H&M should only do exactly what they want regarding appearance in support of their causes and not let anyone know any details. That’s risky enough.

    • VS says:

      Please they don’t need any word of support from future future keen people………..people who should speak up are the queen and Harry’s father. They have decided against it, so be it!!!!
      H&M are gone now……..

    • Guest2.0 says:

      Agree. There is obviously a great security risk and it’s been amplified by the non stop hate and attacks driven by the British media. That’s the reason why the BRF has to provide H&M security. The BRF should have stood up for H&M and not allowed this situation to develop as it has. One can only imagine the threats and risk they face.

  20. S808 says:

    I find it amazing that people are taking issue with this clarification, mainly that it is terse. All the shit they have been through??? They deserve to be terse! I especially loved the part about the 12-month review cause yeah, the Kent’s are making their own money, rep the queen in a few capacities like H&M will be doing (hope they drop it once the queens dies but whatever), and the royal family website even links back to HER website where she sells books WITH her HRH title. It’s all about Harry and Meghan being too popular and none of the royal reporters AKA palace spokesmen want to say it.

    • VS says:

      I know @S808. I am surprised by how people think they should keep quiet and continue to accept lies been told about them………I am glad they set the record straight and expose the double standards we all already knew about.

      I think a lot of people love keeping their head in the sand, hoping stuff would just go away! No it doesn’t; we have seen that with H&M, it just get worse and worse………those who hate them will continue to hate them no matter what. their hate has nothing to do with what H&M have done; they cannot even explain what they have done wrong except by repeating BS read online; those who love them will continue to, me included. They are exposing the RF to the world and that’s delicious!

      • L4frimaire says:

        The royal family is exposing themselves. Harry and Meghan just set the record straight but they aren’t saying anything else and don’t need to.

    • YaGotMe says:

      All things considered – I thought their update was relatively straight forward and restrained.

      As I was reading it, I found myself inserting all kinds of words that likely wouldn’t have made it past the mods.

      • MeghanNotMarkle says:

        I thought so, too. They got straight to the point and didn’t say more than needed to be said.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It isn’t just the Kents or Sarah Ferguson when married. As a poster wrote a day ago – Queen, Anne, Sophie all make private money while using their titles. Dog and horse breeding sales, horsing events at Anne’s estate, horse race prize winnings.

      • Nic919 says:

        Sophie was running her PR business when she was first married and no one whined about her HRH nor did they for Edward’s production company. They only stopped working because of scandals relating to providing access, not because of the fact they were earning money.

  21. Ainsley7 says:

    Everyone keeps saying that there is a precedent to what they want, but there isn’t. No working Royal has ever tried to have a global Royal charity that is not representative of the Queen. If they wanted to work private jobs like Beatrice, Eugenie, Prince Michael, and such then that would be different. I don’t understand why no one seems to see the difference. They basically want to continue doing what they have been doing as representatives of the Queen without representing the Queen. So, the Queen wanted there to be a clear distinction. It’s not a punishment. I honestly don’t understand H&M’s stance on this. The statement wasn’t very professional and just fuels all the gossip and speculation they have been trying to stop.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Keep justifying pedo Andrew taking private cash off Pitch at the Palace while representing the Queen.

      Your agenda is obvious.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        Don’t accuse me of things that I haven’t said. Accusing people of supporting a pedophile when you don’t like what they have said is a huge jump and inappropriate. I have no such agenda and it’s really gross that you would just assume that. Andrew belongs in jail, but that doesn’t make H&M’s position less confusing. One has nothing to do with the other.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Still missing the point and supporting the idea the ‘rules’ to apply to only Harry and Meghan.

      • Kkat says:

        Ainsley is totally missing the point.
        And yes, if you aren’t all up in arms about the pedo “breaking the rules.”
        Then you are supporting him at the expense of two people Working While Royal who do NOT in fact rape trafficked teenagers

    • Nic919 says:

      That’s a distinction without a difference. They don’t want the word royal involved in sordid things but the ones doing private work are having their HRHs being included in the promotion for commercial purposes. How is that worse than a foundation or charity? It’s not.

      • VS says:

        @Nic919 —- Love your post!

        BUT stop making too much sense; you are going to “force” some people to hate them even more LOL….after all, don’t you know they should not have said anything on their website? it would have been better for them to say nothing at all, not engage and continue to let trashy trolls and gossipers disparage them online, in prints and on TV.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        No, the Queen wants to make it clear that their charity doesn’t represent her. It’s in not representing her that they get the freedom to do whatever they want with their charity. No one thinks that Beatrice and Eugenie are representing the Queen while doing their jobs. So, while their titles shouldn’t be used, no one is thinking that they are there on behalf of the Queen. Harry and Meghan have been representing the Queen and so there is a need to redefine things now that they are no longer her representatives. Leaving the Royal in blurs the line.

      • Nic919 says:

        Andrew already blurred the line with pitch palace so once again she’s letting Andrew getting away with things that suddenly become rules for Harry and Meghan.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        @Nic919- I’m not entirely sure why you think Harry and Meghan should be using Andrew as a role model. I expect better from them. Just because he’s making shady deals doesn’t mean that others should be allowed. I’d very much like something done to Andrew, but that’s not going to happen right now. The Queen genuinely believes he is innocent. Some parents are just that delusional about their kids. Parliament stepped up in 2011. They need to do it again and this time push harder for actual consequences. It’s the only thing that will change anything as long as the Queen is alive.

      • Nic919 says:

        Yeah that’s cute but Andrew is one of many royals who earn private money and also work for the Queen. I also mentioned the Michaels of Kent but it gets tiresome repeating things for people who fail to listen.

        The Queen has treated Harry and Meghan different from the rest of them and she’s treating them worse than her rapist son Andrew, as if their desire for independence is a greater stain on the monarchy than her criminal arrogant son.

    • Guest says:

      While there is precedence for Royals earning money AND using their titles to do so – it’s comparing apples to an orange GROVE.
      Writing a few children’s books and selling horses is not the same as a GLOBAL brand.
      There are two prongs to this fork — the non-profit for charitable endeavors and the personal income side to build towards financial independence.

      Andrew is scum and there is no justifying his existence, much less his grift.

      I think the statement was professional and direct in laying out the facts in a way to squash some of the BS sensationalism in the reporting on this. But I also think it makes it clear they were caught off guard by not being able to use the SR brand.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, so Harry and Meghan being more successful than others is the reason why ‘laws’ and ‘rules’ only apply to them?

        Take it back to tumblr, ‘Guest’.

      • Guest says:

        I’m not sure the root of the hostility. I am not moving goal posts and I agree that supposed laws and rules are not applied evenly across the BRF.

        I pointed out that the scale is completely different and unprecedented in terms of the BRF — that’s it.

        I hope they blow the lid off the whole damn thing in terms of productivity and popularity.

      • notasugarhere says:

        You are moving goalposts and insisting rules only apply to Harry and Meghan because they’re likely to be successful.

      • Mara says:

        There are a lot of industries where bigger organisations are more heavily regulated than smaller organisations because when things go wrong with big companies it has a bigger impact.
        Having said that I personally see the British Monarchy as a tool of the UK state and I don’t think it should be used by ANY royal (major or minor, young or old) to make a personal profit. Just because some royals work as royals and make money doesn’t make it OK. IMO those dodgy royals should stop their conflict of interest dealings rather than Harry and Meghan starting down the same path.

      • Guest says:

        @ Nota — you are again accusing me of doing things I have explicitly denied.

        I clearly state the “rules” are not evenly applied — your response that I am insisting they only apply to h&M is blatantly disingenuous.

        I have done nothing but point out that there is a lot of space between writing children’s books and a global non-profit organization.

        My point has been and remains that this scope of change and role in the family IS unprecedented. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but the hostility and deliberate misinterpretation of my posts is not necessary.

      • notasugarhere says:

        By pointing out the difference in size, ie. rules only apply if they’re too successful, you’re falling into the trap. Again, pick a unique name and stand by it.

    • anon says:

      They did offer to keep representing the Queen (not full time) and she declined.

      • Guest says:

        @ anon — yes they did and I think it was a bad decision on TQ’s part to decline that offer. However, I can see where it would lead to confusion in relation to the non-Royal side of things. Is this charity function private or royal? How would funding be separated etc. What happens if they support a group or cause that conflicts with the crown, or something flirting on the line of political etc.

        The part time aspect of this seemed the least likely to work and while they made the offer, I think they are relieved it was declined because it gives them the freedom to embark on their endeavors unfettered.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The part-time aspect that, as has been pointing out on here repeatedly, is done by many other members of the family. Whether working royals or not. But keep moving the goal posts when it is Harry and Meghan, ‘Guest’.

      • Guest says:

        @ Nota
        Again with the goal posts. Again, I haven’t “moved” anything.

        I said they made the offer to be part time, that offer was declined and my *opinion* is that I think they are relieved it was declined because it gives them more freedom for their own causes.

        Not every discussion is an attack.

      • Amy Too says:

        Guest, but Harry already has two charities that are very large and well known that he has created outside of his role in the royal family: invictus and sentebale. So that’s not really unprecedented either. This would just be another charitable endeavor they’re creating that doesn’t go through the RF or is specifically tied to it.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        @Amy Too- both Invictus and Sentebale were part of the Royal foundation with the Cambridges and are covered on the Royal’s official site. They weren’t independent of the BRF.

      • Becks1 says:

        @ainsley – they were separate from the royal family when they started. That’s why for many years Harry’s work with Invictus and Sentebale were not counted for his official engagements. Invictus was brought under the royal umbrella shortly before Harry and Meghan “stepped out” in Toronto.

      • Nic919 says:

        Sentebale and Invictus are not a part of the foundation and if William is trying to pull them back in then that may be why there is a fight. Sentebale doesn’t just involve Harry either. It was co- founded by Prince Seeiso.

    • Would it be different? I don’t think the Firm thinks anything Meghan might choose to do — except stop breathing — is acceptable. They made the mistake with Diana and they have made it again with Meghan. Charisma and world interest cannot be defined, chosen, or controlled by the Firm. Not 40 years ago and not today.

      • Scollins says:

        Correct. I find it amusing that the RF are scrambling as fast as they can in an attempt to cover their hateful, lazy backsides. It’s a huge win for antimonarchists. TQ and company are digging their own graves.

    • GuestOne says:

      As per their statement& when news first broke-they wanted to do royal duties (I guess part time)& not take public funding (to remove public interest argument)& which would entail making their own living.
      This is the precedent they are referring to and the royal family’s own website states there is a model for. However the Queen decided this model wouldn’t work for the Sussexes so it was decided they would stand down. If it had been permitted then I guess SussexRoyal would have been ok as they would still be representing the Queen on occasion.

      My reading was this had all been decided in January& for whatever reason it wasn’t reported at the time. However the PRESS has more it a thing with the Fail reporting that the QUEEN had banned its use and that Meghan was looking to defy her. I thought that part of their latest statement was to address the fact of that as agreed they won’t use it anywhere even where Uk/commonwealth rules around use of ‘royal’ dont apply.

      In terms of year review genuinely curious if other non working royals have to run job applications or businesses they set up by the Queen.

      As for profiting of titles many examples have been given of both working AND non working royals cashing in on their status.

      I agree they do need to be careful adding fuel to fire but I don’t think it’s fair to always expect people who are being subject to double standards/mistreatment to just ‘rise above it’. The smear campaign has been going on since Oct 2018& they’ve barely pushed back on it.

      Finally if we are talking unprofessional the Firm has been beyond unprofessional, with some of its players/staff allegedly leaking to the press on things like ‘working too hard’, degree wife comments, using nasty nicknames, not promoting Harry& Meghan’s work on social media etc. If those at the top had shut the leaking etc down& it was a environment where people could be trusted, Sussexit might not have happened.

      • I also think the British RR are churning the waters and trying to build even more hatred toward Meghan because she is on her way back to England. I think they want crowds out jeering her and throwing things. I think this hyper frenzy since the Sussexes schedule was released is an extremely vicious move by these nasty, unprofessional reporters too try and get those extreme crazies out on the street and in her face.

      • notasugarhere says:

        JA, this is why her IWD event should not be announced ahead of time. Release the info after it happens. Do not give the crazies the info needed to hunt her down at a more vulnerable location.

    • MsIam says:

      Did you not read their original statement which said this was something new? That it was a new progressive role? They are not denying that this is ground breaking but that doesn’t automatically make it wrong. Maybe no one else has had the initiative (or the popularity) to do something like this before. Honestly W&K have no options other than the monarchy, and outside of the UK who knows anything about B&E? Are they popular? I would be hard pressed to pick Sophie and Edward out of crowd and Andrew is forever tainted. I say let’s wait and see what happens but no the RF and minions and supporters want to sh!t all over everything.

    • Mumbles says:

      Good luck Ainsley7. There is NO room for anything other than blind devotion.

      If the Sussexes don’t need the “Royal” for their work – and I don’t think they do – then I don’t see why their supporters are so pissy about it. “They don’t need it, but it’s so unfair that they can’t have it, and besides they don’t want it anyway!” My head spins.

      And as far as Harry knowing the tea on William, sounds like a dangerous game for a guy who had quite a wild young adulthood himself (Las Vegas bacchanalia, anyone?)

      • Tina says:

        Personally I think a short gracious statement confirming that they were no longer using royal would have done them many more favors. It seems like another PR failure and opens themselves up as seeming petty. They practically confirmed the tabloid story that I thought was fake about a friend saying that they still had the right to use Royal and the Queen had no jurisdiction. And they have moved on and have all these big projects in the pipeline like Harry’s collaboration with Oprah. No one else will care if they are called Royal, so why are they emphasizing it on their website?

      • MsIam says:

        Mumbles, the difference is all of Harry’s tea is already out in public . And he is the first to admit his screw ups. William is the one trying to put forth the perfect family guy image. Remember that lawsuit threat? Who knows what else is out there.

      • MsIam says:

        @Tina, they did not do anything at all to confirm that fake story in the Fail. The story about the queen having no jurisdiction on the word royal outside of the UK has been all over the internet, even here on Celebitchy. There have been lawyers all over saying they felt the queen wouldn’t necessarily prevail even if she did try and sue Harry. And the website contradicts the story by saying they will not use the name anywhere while the story claimed they would. People need to stop trying to police and silence Harry and Meghan. They are not kids and they are not backing down.

      • Nic919 says:

        Pointing out double standards in how the Queen has treated some royals differently from others is not blind devotion. What’s ironic is the blind adherence by some people to the “queen must be right in all her actions” when facts have been pointed out that there are different standards for different people.

        Please explain how the Michaels of Kent can have on the royal website a statement that confirms they earn money privately but yet still represent the Queen on occasion. Isn’t that what Harry and Meghan were asking for? Why couldn’t that be granted to them? No one has provided a real reason for that obvious double standard.

    • L4frimaire says:

      @Ainsley, But these other non- working royals also support charities and are patrons to them, without representing the Queen. So are you saying it’s ok to earn private income but not ok to do charitable work as private citizens? So if they fundraise on behalf of a charity or serve on a board, that is not ok, but selling a book is? It was already established that they will longer be representing the Queen so this a moot point. They agreed not to use “ royal” back in January and withdrew the trademark then. We are only just finding out about that. Whatever they’re doing, it will be on their timeline, certain things were already agreed to, and despite all the noise and nastiness, there doesn’t seem to be a reason to change that, nor does it seem the Sussexes are planning to. Why this sudden firestorm of press, a week before they’re set to arrive back in UK?

  22. Guest2.0 says:

    “For the above reason, the trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed.”

    Question here for the legal folks. Now that H&M have withdrawn their trademark applications, what’s to prevent some other entity/person from applying for those same trademarks? And then using those trademarks to sell frivolous stuff like cups, food, etc. Wouldn’t it have been better to allow H&M to own the trademarks to prevent their use by others?

    • Nic919 says:

      In theory someone else could take the trademark if they relinquish ownership. I suspect that there may be a delay on that. It might be something they keep but not actually use for that reason.

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      I think the second they are available we ought to band together and buy it. Then use it. Use it to uplift H&M&A the true Royals in actions, words and deeds. The petty in me thinks we should use it to just get under RR & D&DoC’s skin and blow their minds. The more graceful part of me thinks we should use it to support and cushion and raise their profile and financials and give them all our support.

      • Honeybeeblues says:

        I think we should go with tee’s, mugs, calendars, etc., covered in bananas with uplifting messages of humanity written on them. Avocado toast mouse pads…I think we should set a meeting, Shirleygailgal.

    • Gatorlover says:

      I had the same thought of getting it for defense and for charitable use.

      But there are now eight applications in the USPTO database containing “Sussex Royal”. And yep, they include cups, mugs, novelties, etc. Way to go BRF to keep things classy.

  23. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    Their statement said all that needed to be said. No sugarcoating necessary.

    I’m really hoping that in a year they’ll come back and be like, “Nah, we got this. Thanks, though” and go on their merry way. I choose to be optimistic about it all.

  24. Sofia says:

    They specifically write in their statement that there is UK legislation governing the use of „royal“ in the UK. There were some articles on that in different media too. I think a lot of what is considered „punitive“ here has more to do with law. You cannot have a global charity that cannot use its name in the UK. That would make no sense. I don’t think any of the other non-working royals have founded entities that carry royal in its name, but I could be wrong. They initially wanted to carry out some representative duties to support the Queen and Commonwealth, but if you act representing the Head of State you have to accept certain conditions (eg access of the press to events where you represent the monarch) , which they were, understandably, no longer willing to do. I think in the end this clear cut will be better for them and for the monarchy. Ideally they would drop the Sussex too. They won’t need Sussex or Royal to succeed.

    • MsIam says:

      I’m not sure why people keep insisting they should drop Sussex? That is legally their title to use even without the HRH. There are many dukes and duchesses that use the title without the HRH, with the Duchess of Ferguson coming to mind. And she is a far less honorable person than Prince Harry or Duchess Meghan. So no, they should keep and use Sussex however they want.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sussex is also their name. He ceased being ‘of Wales’ when he was given that new title at marriage.

      • zilin says:

        But it’s not legally theirs. It’s not even the Queen’s. It’s a nobility title which has existed in the UK for several centuries. The current monarch is only a caretaker and neither does she or anyone from her family legally own any noble title. The Queen can bequeath the title, but the UK Parliament still has to agree. Hence the constitutional in constitutional monarchy.

      • Ariela says:

        The “Duchess of Ferguson” is actually Sarah Ferguson, the duchess of York.

  25. Jumpingthesnark says:

    Heh. I sort of wish they’d use “royal” anyway, or “royale” since they are in a different country where there is no jurisdiction. Can you imagine the wailing and pearl clutching? While pedo Andy remains part of the inner circle with his military titles and church walks with mummy.
    The BRF are showing their asses every time with this. At some point they will want to back track from all of this shit, because they will finally realize it makes them look so bad. But by that time I think it will be too late

  26. Gi says:

    I really don’t feel comfortable with the Queen being called an a-hole if I’m honest.

    • Nic919 says:

      I’m not really comfortable with the queen protecting a teen rapist from getting justice.

    • VS says:

      but you are comfortable with the queen parading around with Andrew!!!!! this post needs to be bookmarked………as I am impressed by what makes you uncomfortable!

      • Gi says:

        VS, at what point did I say I was comfortable with the queen parading around Andrew? As the victim of sexual abuse myself I really am not and I agree he should face the consequences of his actions and he is a paedophile. Equally I can be uncomfortable with the use of the word a-hole to describe a 93 year old woman. You have jumped down my throat and read things into my post that weren’t there!

      • VS says:

        @Gi —— given I accepted what made you uncomfortable, you should be able to accept how impressed I am by it.

        Isn’t it amazing how the queen’s age is used now? I wonder if she had been another color, what would have been your level of discomfort? unfortunately we will never know; perhaps that’s a good thing!

        I assume it is fine to be an asshole if you are old

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Gi

        When a 93 year old woman behaves enough like a real, vindictive A-Hole, I think it’s perfectly acceptable to drop the euphemisms and just call her what she is.

        A 93 year old *A-Hole*.

      • Geeze VS — would you take a chill pill and stop attacking other celebitchies. It is really uncalled for. What is it about this comment section today as it seems there’s a lot of attacking each other for an expressed opinion. I love this site and fellow commenters for the great dialog and courtesy we all try to share. Having everyone comment ASSHOLE is not a dialog. It’s just name calling. And to tell another commentor to go to another site just for expressing a discomfort over something makes this sound like TROLLVILLE today.

      • VS says:

        @JA Lowcountry Lady ——– where exactly am I attacking her? because I was sarcastic? Being sarcastic is now attacking people? maybe it is! I think the queen is an asshole; somehow some only seem to be offended by certain type of assholes…….

        Can you please point me to where I asked her to go to another site? you can speak for yourself, don’t lend me words I didn’t ask for. Where in my comment did I ask her to leave CB? why would I even think I am allowed to do that?

      • lingli says:

        Seriously, who piddled in your cornflakes today?

    • GuestWho says:

      I’m not that comfortable with the queen behaving like an a-hole – but here we are.

    • anon says:

      I am, since she acts like one.

    • Olenna says:

      Well, IMO, Ole Queenie is giving a$$holes a bad name.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      Personally, I prefer calling her an *A-Hole*. Seems more fitting gently capitalized.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If the shoe fits, or in this case, if they name is earned.

    • Truthiness says:

      Okay, I suppose A-hole is declasse. HRH the Royal Protector of Teen Rapists and Corrupt Money-Launderers then.

    • Jaded says:

      @Gi: well I’ve heard her referred to as much worse than an a-hole on other sites. She is behaving like a stubborn, short-sighted, hypocritical and vindictive a-hole, especially for protecting her sexual predator of a grifting son and his equally grifting ex-wife.

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      Well, she’s being a grade-A a-hole so here we are.

    • L4frimaire says:

      Ok, that’s fine, you’re uncomfortable, just like some people don’t like people protesting national anthems. However, I will say this. I’m not an historian but it seems like when an aging monarch is in their twilight, the courts surrounding them tends to disintegrate into different self serving factions led by courtiers and the press in this case. Whether it be Louis XIV, XV, or Emperor Franz Jospeh, things deteriorate. This is it in real time, with an elderly monarch and and aging crown prince, compounded by Brexit and the nationalist xenophobic climate. This never should have happened if certain elements didn’t overreact and start throwing people under the bus, because the quarterback and head cheerleader weren’t getting enough love, but it did, and the Sussexes decided to move on. It’s not exactly War of the Roses ( ha ha) or fleeing the Bolsheviks, so don’t get all this hand wringing and vitriol. They wanted a streamlined monarchy and the Sussexes decided to be proactive about it.

    • MJM says:

      One of the biggest assholes I’ve ever dealt with was a woman in her nineties. A very passive aggressive nasty human being. Another was a great aunt who was a high conflict personality her entire life and didn’t get better with age. If someone is behaving in a petty and vindictive way toward others they are assholes period and old age doesn’t give you a pass from being called out.

  27. Rapunzel says:

    Lol at all the “Harry and Meghan are disrespecting the Queen” outrage. The Queen disrespected them when their newborn child was compared to a chimp… and she said nothing. She deserves all the terse shade they can throw.

    Read an article in the Fail about how Meg has put a “sliver of ice” in Harry’s heart. Nah, it was his family and the media that did that.

    • Olenna says:

      This.

    • Nyro says:

      Those ridiculous monarchists really believe she’s this sweet old granny and that The Firm is a big warm, loving, supportive family who all get together for Sunday dinner and go on summer vacations in matching “Mountbatten-Windsor” t-shirts. That old lady is a petty narcissist who cares only for herself, her dogs, her horses, and the alleged rapist she raised. If Harry’s developed a “sliver of ice” in his heart for these people it’s about damn time. He’s almost the age his mother was when she died. I bet she has been in his mind heavily, looking back at her short life and how nasty she was treated by that family. This awakening would have happened with or without Meghan.

    • Korra says:

      You know, even if Harry and Meghan actually did disrespect the Queen, what has she ever done in her lifetime to receive such admiration? I think other commentators have said it best when they noted that she gets a lot of goodwill this late in her life because of being in her role for so long, but not for actually being good at it. If we look back at her legacy, she has a longstanding history of PR disasters, harmful behavior to the people around her and shady decisions — many more which we will likely hear about after her death.

      She isn’t some wilting flower in need of protection.

    • Lady D says:

      “a sliver of ice” Is that their new description of a backbone?

  28. RoyalBlue says:

    It needed to be done because this is their voice. This is how they tell their stoey so we are not confused by what is conjecture, truth or rumor.

    They have been trying to get peace for sometime now and it’s obvious they were being ignored. As a result shots were fired. Boom, they dropped the website and started a war. Her Maj/Charles/Bill said fine, no toys for you and took away all their nice shiny things. The Sussexes let us know how punitive they were and are fine to move on. And I am satisfied that we know the facts now and the silly speculation can end.

    I am actually really happy that they will chose to work with existing charities to help them grow, much along the lines of smart works and grenfell.

  29. Rapunzel says:

    Tin foil tiara thought: The British Royal family has greatly underestimated Harry and Meghan. They assumed that when Harry and Meghan left to go make money that they were gonna do lame stuff like reality shows And that any charity work would be ridiculous stuff like Kate’s struggle survey. They assumed H and M would struggle and come crawling back, hence the one yr. review thing.

    The JP Morgan/GS interactions showed they are gonna be fine and build a legitimate Global brand. The removal of Royal is an attempt to sabotage. The BRF knows it made a mistake letting them go, and is compounding the mistake by trying to ruin them so they’ll come back.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      I don’t think this is a tin foil hat theory at all. I think it’s simple fact! 😁✌️

    • L4frimaire says:

      Agree with this, especially the income part. They want to bully them into submission. The press and assume the royal family were really rattled by the JP Morgan talk, followed by Goldman Sachs. They don’t seem so bothered about Stanford, yet, but if they have any Silicon Valley connections, they’ll go ballistic on that too. Anyway, notice how before they kept saying how the Sussexes want to go full Hollywood and be Kardashians? You don’t hear that anymore. You hear about the terrible greedy bankers. It will be interesting where they turn up. I bet Meghan definitely has something planned and it will be big. Eventually they will address the media frenzy, but will probably be as part of a larger event. Also a non-profit makes more sense because they don’t have the deep pockets to form a foundation, they can be more hands on with established charities, and they can partner with existing foundations. They really are melting down( again), over there. One royal reporter compared the statement to. North Korea. Seriously. So much for stiff upper lip because the Brits have thrown out that playbook and are embracing all the drama and the messiness. They hate the Sussexes but let’s face it, the press and public are totally getting off on this. It gives them life and they are dreading the tumbleweeds to follow once they (the Rota), are completely shut out. I’m so tired of all of this and just wish they could move on in peace.

    • Nyro says:

      Exactly. They thought Meghaan would be selling cheap cookware on HSN between tapings of their reality show on Bravo. The finance connections have them shook. And yes, I’m certain the tech industry meeting has already happened. Google’s campus is literally like 15-20 minutes away from Stanford. Of course they were there. Lucky for them, the royal rota rats don’t know California and wouldn’t be able to put two and two together. But yes, the meltdowns will epic when that comes out. And instead of a Netflix deal, I’d love for them to go with Disney Plus, just to piss off everyone who thought they embarrassed themselves with Bob Iger.

    • Tina says:

      If they have these big financial projects in the works wouldn’t it be better if they did the joint statement with Buckingham palace to confirm they were no longer using royal. Further why even accept any money from Charles if they can sustain their own way. Money comes with strings no matter who you are.

      • MsIam says:

        @Tina You need to be giving this advice to Buckingham Palace then. They are the ones who keep leaking things ahead of time and forcing H&M to scramble. Wasn’t it the head of communications at BP who was found liking those awful hateful statements about Meghan on Twitter? You keep saying that H&M need to play ball when it’s the other team that is throwing the game.

      • notasugarhere says:

        iirc Charles’s head of communications, or former head, was liking anti-Meghan posts on his personal twitter.

      • L4frimaire says:

        It’s not the Sussexes who are leaking and frothing like mad dogs all over the place. The palace are the one who keep tripping up their own deal. They say give it a year, but can’t even hold out for a month. They are the most scrutinized couple in the world and know everyone is watching. They’re not in some bubble of sycophants. I think they’ll play their part and keep it tight if the palace would let them. Why are they freaking out so much in the UK? What are they worried about?

  30. Mich says:

    What are you talking about? Are you new to the concept of Royalty? The titles are associated with Harry being the grandson of the Queen and the son of the future King. This isn’t like being a VP at a corporation.

    (p.s. This is response to a comment above…don’t know why it is showing up the way it is).

  31. Lulu says:

    Yep. It’s also very obvious why there would be an issue about the HRH when there isn’t for Beatrice and Eugenie. The Yorks are working private jobs. You might argue that they wouldn’t get such plum ones without royal connections, but that applies to a lot of celebrity and upper-class offspring and the main thing is that it’s ostensibly not connected to being princesses. If Harry had gone to a desk job in the army and Meghan to a job in a bank, there wouldn’t be an issue. But they clearly don’t intend to work day jobs, they intend to build a brand. They even directly said in their first statement that one of the key reasons to step down was the prohibition on monetising themselves. They don’t just want to be global philanthropists, they want to make money. And they want to do that through their brand – which is expliticly connected to the royal family. And there are clear legal problems with that, even putting aside the potential image implications of Harry say giving a paid speech at a business event which the company then advertises as being ‘royal approved’.

    • notasugarhere says:

      As pointed out yesterday, Beatrice and Eugenie are frequently billed as ‘HRH Princess X’ as part of their jobs. They are profiting off the HRH. These ‘rules’ seemingly only apply to Harry and Meghan.

    • MsIam says:

      You act like making money is some type of crime. Actually they can do both, have an LLC. set up to earn income and still maintain a non profit. A lot of wealthy people, athletes, entertainers have non profits and still work to make money separately. I cannot understand all of the hand wringing about this at all. Plus, if Charles gets his way there will be a lot of Royal family members in this same boat in the future. Are they going to tell them how much money they can make or how successful they can be too?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Eugenie keeps using her HRH and title to promote an anti-slavery charity. Given her father’s links to human trafficking, she needs to wise up and stop bringing that charity down.

    • Nic919 says:

      So instead of fixing the actual issues that Andrew has currently caused with Pitch Palace and his other schemes, it is more important to make a big deal about imaginary things Harry could endorse in the future.

  32. Talie says:

    This is kind of it for the British media and the palace in regards to H&M. This was their last chance to stick it to them publicly because after they leave, they will no longer be privy to anything they do and will learn about their new ventures like the rest of us – that has to sting. Palace insiders can no longer shape the narrative and use them.

    • Lowrider says:

      The media will use “sources” instead of palace insiders/sources.

      • Amy Too says:

        But they’ll just be stabbing in the dark, publishing complete nonsense lies. They won’t be able to leak the things that the Sussexes are actually doing and twist them to look negative ahead of the Sussexes announcing it on their own. Like when they got out ahead of Harry’s travel initiative and preset the conversation to be all about how he was a hypocrite for lecturing about the environment while flying on private jets. They also won’t be privy to anything that the BRF is asking the Sussexes to do and won’t be able to twist those things as being punishments when they’re actually just normal requests or something the Sussexes wanted to do anyways. Like a tour to Africa being described as a banishment.

  33. Marjorie says:

    QEII is only here another 5 years or so; all of this is about how H&M will function during the reigns of King Charles and especially King Normal Bill and the delightful Queen Keen. I think H&M saw how they would be permanently under the bus (Carole is going to be in charge) and were like, gotta go. And also Harry remembered a few things about misapplied finances and wandering scepters and put those cards on the table. Seeya, bye.

    Really, this was inevitable. Can you imagine Bill and his inlaws putting up with Meghan and her stardust during his coronation???

    One more thing – hey, QEII! I’m starting a new brand marjorieroyal! What you gonna do about it? So ridiculous.

  34. Mich says:

    The way Charles allows his son to be treated disgusts me. The Queen’s slobbering over her rapist son while doing this to her grandson disgusts me. Particularly because Harry’s big ‘crime’ is a) wanting to protect his family and b) wanting to do go in the world.

  35. windyriver says:

    There’s an interesting question about where this leaves Harry as far as his position as a Counsellor of State – first, if he’s out of the UK long enough to not be considered “domiciled” there, but also, if he’s not to be considered representing TQ, although he maintains his place in the succession. A similar question for the next in the order, Andrew – if he’s withdrawn from public life/not representing TQ, is he out of consideration for counsellor should it be required? The fact that Andrew was next in line was one reason I didn’t originally think Harry would leave the family (there was a slim possibility Andrew could end up as Regent for George under certain unfortunate circumstances.)

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/01/21/craig-prescott-harry-and-meghan-regency-counsellors-of-state-and-a-slimmed-down-royal-family/

    The official royal website at the moment has an odd entry about who the counsellors are : “The current Counsellors of State are These are currently The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry and The Duke of York.” Looks like someone wrote this in a hurry? And Prince Harry, not The Duke of Sussex?

  36. Maxie says:

    It may be a good idea to completely ditch the Sussex brand.

    They may feel like it’s too soon to go as Harry and Meghan or that they need to use the titles to justify the security costs.

  37. one of the Marys says:

    I hope they leave Archie home when they next visit so the family doesn’t get any part of him and there’s no press photos
    I hope their patronage visits and public appearances have tons of happy supporters and there’s loads of those photos going around
    I think they have tried to lay low and one update since the break seems reasonable. And it will be ~ 6 weeks until the next update when they go live. It’s the press keeping them front and centre.
    At this point I too think they should not use the name Sussex but make a very clean break.
    I’m curious/suspicious about the one year review. I wonder what Charles/the Royal family are thinking with that? Is it about finances? Resuming work as senior royals?
    Can’t wait for their next appearances!! Will definitely be looking at all the body language.

  38. Lucy2 says:

    Whenever the queen throws this kind of nonsense at them, I hope they’re just like whatever and keep enjoying their lives in Canada.

  39. Anne says:

    The DM again wrote up a false story. The Sussex Global charities was not copyrighted by Jessica Mulroney. She addressed this today on Twitter:

    If certain investigative journalists were to do their jobs, perhaps they would see that Shoebox Project Foundation is owned by a Mr Roy in North Carolina and has no affiliations or ties to our charity The Shoebox Project. Happy Sunday.

  40. notasugarhere says:

    ‘Guest’ you have made plenty of anti-Meghan posts, but pretend you aren’t by hiding behind a generic ‘Guest’ font. Pick a unique name and stand by what you’ve written.

  41. Coffee says:

    Given that H&M want to step away from being royal seniors – why is it an issue if they have to hand in their key cards? Its like leaving ur employment for a new one. You leave everything at the door before moving on. Idk why anyone thought, including H&M, that continuing to use Royal would be allowed?
    Because essentially that would be like operating a new court under the BRF but at the same time separate. Idk if that makes sense. I get the feeling that this is what they wanted to do and werent allowed.

    They sound unhappy with the way things unfolded. They have their own money (millions of it) so it isnt like theyre on the streets or on the verge of it (like a lot of people would be when forced to leave their parents home). They dont have to be under reviews by the BRF or anyone for that matter. Just up and leave and do your own thing.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They continue to be royals, continue to have HRH, continue to have the Sussex title. Sussex is their defacto last name now, so why the problem with them using what is their own name?

    • Jaded says:

      Leaving the royal fold is not at all like leaving a job and just handing in your access card, etc. When you are born into royalty with an HRH and awarded Duke/Duchess responsibilities, that is your LIFE. To renounce any of this would take a lengthy act of parliament (we’re talking years) where their lives would be stalled. They would be in a netherworld where their work would be on hold. Meghan and Harry want to use their titles in order to give credence and trust to the work they are currently doing and hope to do in future. Harry also has patronages that he loves and dearly wants to keep working with them if possible, hence the “half in/half out” nature of their plans to keep representing the monarchy. It’s simplistic to say “oh you have money just leave and get on with it” but it’s a much more complex situation than that.

      • Coffee says:

        But why is it more complex? Theyre not taking money from the brf, are not carrying out official duties, Theyre millionaires in their own right, whats the hold back? In one breath everyone says the BRF is vile, outdated etc etc (and i agree) but then it also adds credibility to H&Ms endeavors? Wouldnt they WANT to step away and not associate themselves with anything Royalty?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Try reading what Jaded wrote, including the lengthy legal issues involved.

    • MsIam says:

      Because the name was to be used for charity. Not like selling milk or anything. And also he is still part of the royal family and he was born a royal. But this is about control and money period. The rest of the royals don’t want Harry creating any potentially billion dollar entity and they not be able to get their hands on it. Plus they still want to be able to eat from the public trough. If Harry is seen as turning down the money then why can’t they?

    • Tina says:

      Completely agree Coffee. The way they are handling their press] releases around the transition shows they actually DO want to keep all the royal perks… otherwise they would not prolong all this drama around these details. When celebrity couples get divorced, the ones that have truly moved on will release a short thankful statement and peace out. If they have all this money and they don’t want to deal with the Royal Family just peace out. They dont need to clarify everything on their website to continue to do their charity work.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They were going to use their last name. Gosh, the horror.

        They need to use their website to clarify facts vs. the spin coming from the RRs and leakers at BP, CH, and KP.

      • GuestOne says:

        doesn’t sound like it’s them prolonging releases- statement says they wanted to release info earlier& sounds like BP didn’t let them.

        As has been mentioned there is a model for what they initially wanted to do and the Queen said no because of reasons. After Andrew stepped down there were lots of columnists saying the Queen needed to fire more royals& polling suggesting that the public preferred to support heirs only. If the Sussexes had left it on BP’s timeline their courtiers would have spun Sussexit to their press buddies that they had been fired.

        Similarly i took their statement as pushing back at the Fail’s reporting of the Queen banning use of Sussex Royal so they can’t sell tatt with royal emblazoned on it (as Piers Morgan did suggest) and Meghan (of course only Meghan) being defiant. If they are still ready to launch their charity org on same timeline sounds like it wasn’t the biggest hiccup ever.

        Harry has been brought up on idea of duty all his life& wanted to walk away previously but he stayed out of sense of duty. Sounds like he may still feel that duty/loyalty to the Queen (people may have our view but that’s still his family) and their problems weren’t about the actual royal duties so likely why they weren’t after clean break.

    • MsIam says:

      They are trying to leave @Coffee. H&M did not ask for the 12 month review. When you hand in your key card does the boss demand you come back in a year so they can judge what you have been doing? It is disingenuous to pretend this should be like some everyday work job and some how it’s H&M that aren’t following “the rules”. This so-called “royal family” is acting like trash, just like another family we know about in the US.

      • Coffee says:

        This likely all boils down to them receiving funds from Charles – probably why they have to go with whatever the palace demands.

        And my point is that they dont HAVE to. They HAVE money. Millions. They can figuratively speaking throw the key in the BRFs face and walk off. But for some reason they’ve agreed to 12 month reviews and probably NDAs as well.

  42. Let them wear pants says:

    Any other family, and the Queen would be called out for her controlling behaviour. All Harry and Meghan want is the same control over their lives that every other adult member of a free society gets to enjoy. This woman controls what clothes they wear, what they eat, when they go to bed, what job they’re allowed to have, where they go, who they spend Christmas with, who they marry. She makes the women wear skirts and tights, insists they spend Christmas with her and never with their own families, makes them stay up until she’s ready to go to bed, chooses their food for them at the dinners they’re obliged to attend with her and won’t let them marry without her approval. Then there’s whatever emotional control Prince Phillip had over the family too. Any other family, and that level of controlling behaviour would be discussed in the context of domestic violence and emotional abuse.

    I’m Australian, I don’t agree with monarchism anyway for democratic reasons, but it’s also for the effect on the royal family too, that they have their lives planned out for them and don’t get any say in what direction it takes. Maybe they want to be plumbers, or electricians, or nurses, or doctors, or accountants, or actors, or teachers. But they don’t get a say in that. And anyone else can marry the person they love, but they need Mummy’s permission. It’s controlling and it’s an unhealthy family environment.

    • Nyro says:

      We’re all supposed to admire this abusive family dynamic because “duty” or whatever. The whole thing is a joke.

      • JC says:

        If you do not admire the Royal family for that, then why follow them at all?

        This the question I always think of Meghan Stan’s. Do the even understand the monarchy?

      • Nyro says:

        @JC, I don’t “follow the royal family”. I’m American and don’t don’t care to understand your ridiculous monarchy. I’m a Meghan fan, not some ‘royal watcher”. I couldn’t tell you what Kate’s maiden name was or what Balomoral is before Meghan came along. Those other ones have never been on my radar and I don’t care about them. I knew about Diana casually as a kid but that’s it. I don’t look up to or admire those other bums. I was impressed with Meghan and what she was accomplishing with her husband. And I will continue to follow her, not the family.

    • MsIam says:

      @Let them, it sounds like some type of crazy religious cult doesn’t it, lol? I’m sure it is worse than we even know or imagine.

    • Nic919 says:

      If this not a sign for all other Commonwealth countries who still have her as the head of state to cut the ties I don’t know what is. They harbour a criminal rapist and go after a young couple who are looking to earn their own money and not be reliant on the taxpayers. Their values are so screwed it’s amazing. And their defenders are interesting as well. So quick to toss trademark law as the end of the argument when the rapist is hiding in plain sight certainly not complying with the law because his mother protects him from all consequences. Andrew needs to be in prison and until that happens everything else is a distraction.

  43. pierre lecouteur says:

    I KNOW I AM COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC BUT WHY ISN T ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT THE BIG YELLOW SCHOOL BUS WITH ANDREW THE PEDOS PICTURE ON IT SAYING IF ANYONE SEES HIM TO CALL THE FBI THAT GLORIA ALDRIDGE SENT UP AND DOWN THE MALL AND IN FRONT OF NUTTINGHAM PALACE

    • L4frimaire says:

      I’m surprised there hasn’t been a post on this and of course, the Royal reporters are like HRH Andrew who? There’s also a big write up in NY times about another man Andrew hung out with named Peter Nygard, another pervy rich guy who likes girls below voting age. But Harry and Meghan, you know. The Sussexes are the end of civilization as we know it.

  44. Dark and Stormy says:

    As far as I can tell the big difference here between what H&M are trying to do and what other royals have done comes down to 2 things:

    1. Most of the royals do not have corporations (or foundations, LLC, whatever you want to call it. Pitch the Palace is an event not a corporation. I assume writing books and selling horses do not require registration as a corporation.

    2. This keeps the Sussexes from further dividing any charitable endeavors with the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

    Meghans big mistake is going to be that she hit the road running instead of learning all the rules first. She’s getting out gamed in the long run which is probably why they haven’t stripped Harry completely and I think that’s why the BRF wants to revisit in a year. Her second mistake was trusting Americans to know how all of this would work. All the other royals figured it out and now we are all seeing why Harry was the “fun” one.

    • MsIam says:

      Well I agree with this. Meghan did not understand that rule number one is to be lazy and not do anything substantial for the first 10-15 years. Rule number two is make sure that whatever you do, that it doesn’t look better than what Shiftless and Waity are doing. Rule number three is be fine with the press attacking you for following rules one and two as well as anything else they want to throw in. And of course, it goes without saying that she should be fine with racism because everyone is over it and it doesn’t really exist in the UK anyway. Have I forgotten anything? Let me know.

      • VS says:

        @MsIam —- you are on fire today!!!! Meghan should have learned that it is better to be keen for ~19 years; then after a few years in the RF, release a survey asking if people want to eat!!!

      • Nic919 says:

        You forgot the most important rule. Be white. That excuses all laziness and mediocrity.

      • Coffee says:

        You’re failing to see the point. You dont go into a centuries old institution thinking you can modernize it, which is the narrative that her team pushed when she walked on the scene. What happened to divide and conquer?
        Take ur time, get to know who/what you’re dealing with and take it one step at a time.

      • Guest2.0 says:

        @Coffee. At no point did Meghan or “her team” push the narrative that she was going to modernize the monarchy. All that modernization rubbish was coming from the media.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Pitch at the Palace was a shell game, with Andrew using BP, his royal title, and royal role to openly make money off entrepreneurs. Yet you defend it.

      Neither Harry nor Meghan are getting ‘out gamed’, but heck, that’s a tumblr trope too.

      William was trying to steal Hubb money. The financials proved Harry and Meghan were the only ones bringing in the revenue. It would be W&K trying to take money raised by Harry and Meghan, not the other way round.

      Using their last name is wrong now?

    • Nic919 says:

      No one other than Kate took a decade before doing actual work, which still doesn’t compare to the rest even now. Sophie did more work while running her own business and Diana was 19 and quickly figured out how to do it. It’s not rocket science. It’s called not being lazy and selfish.

  45. Guest says:

    No matter what harry and Meghan done the British media would have torn them apart. The bm lies and hate have already taken root here in the us, the women on the real were trashing them this week.

    Harry might as well go out guns blazing. Eventually things settle and him and Meghan can start making their money. Meanwhile something not settling is the royals problem with prince Andrew.

  46. Jaded says:

    I have been and still am of the opinion that something extremely serious came to light between Harry and William, something so bad it severed their relationship immediately and permanently. Harry lifted up a rock and something evil came crawling out. There’s plenty of fodder to chew on over this one – was it the Rose Hanbury mess and Harry trying to console Kate? Was it William’s opinion that Harry shouldn’t marry a bi-racial woman? Was it finding out that William was the key leaker of the “poor fragile Harry, his mental state isn’t good and has to depend on Meghan” stories? Was it everyone condoning the continued protection of Andrew? A combination of all of it? IDK but the genesis must have been horrific for Harry and Meghan to make such a huge step, then have TQ try to thwart them every step of the way. I hope they leave Archie here on Vancouver Island when they go back to the UK, and I hope they take up permanent residence here. They deserve to throw off the toxicity of the BRF and media and shine their light.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I agree, Jaded. There is much more here than is being brought to light. It boils down to William, his petulance, his racism. The Hubb money, how they tried to claim SHOUT was all W&K. How he mistreated Harry his entire life, and what he did or said regarding Meghan and Archie. Cannot be repaired, which is why William keeps stepping on himself in his leaks to Wooten. He’s trying-and-failing to get out front front with the PR story of ‘good guy, protective older brother’.

    • Nic919 says:

      Several reporters have hinted at something very serious. I wonder if it relates to how the foundation money was spent and how they want to use the profits for the cookbook for the Cambridge endeavours. But I don’t think it’s only that because there is definitely a deeply personal element to it between the brothers.

      • Jaded says:

        I think that’s a good part of it – the Cambridges certainly tread all over the work Meghan and Harry did and tried to co-opt it as partly theirs, along with something shady with the finances.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        There’s been rumblings about the financials at the Royal Foundations for years, primarily how the money was spent. Harry was the only one bringing in money for it and most of that money went to support Cambridge initiatives. William supposedly put his salary from his air ambulance job into the Foundation but there was never any evidence of that – I can’t help but feel there was something seriously shady going on there. Didn’t they have several financial directors?

        There are many elements to the problems between the brothers that has been brewing for years and I think William’s treatment of Meghan was the final straw.

    • Nyro says:

      Several reporters have said that something went down around the time of the wedding. I think it’s that Baldy told Harry not to marry Meghan because of her blackness and/or called her a racist slur. The situation has been out in lockdown by the fam and the press because even in Brexit era Britain, William would take a HUGE hit if his racism was exposed. The world would be disgusted, not for him but for Diana, to know that one of her boys grew up to be a racist man.

      • MsIam says:

        @Nyro I don’t think that is it. Charles and Phillip have said things that are racist and insensitive in the past. Even Harry has said and done things. I think it may be financially related because the implication is that it is a legal matter. A racist statement by William would be embarrassing but given the current world climate I think it would be brushed aside pretty quickly. Look how quickly the press seems to have moved on past Andrew.

    • MsIam says:

      I follow a YouTube channel, and no not one of the crazy ones, that showed a clip from a reporter on a UK talk show. He said there was an issue he could not talk about due to legal reasons that if it were made public it would completely change everyone’s perspective on H&M and people would understand why Harry and Meg are stepping away. Now I don’t know if that was press hyperbole or what but he seemed pretty serious about whatever it is.

      • Jaded says:

        I’m sure there are a number of reporters who are sitting on a gold mine of information that would blow us all away if it somehow got out.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Since this whole thing started people have been saying that its to do with the Cambridge’s – that Harry has evidence that they’ve been selling him and Meghan out to the press in exchange for them burying his Rose bush trimming. There is also speculation that the Middleton’s esp Pippa were also at it – the news of her rapist FIL seems to have ‘disappeared’. I think all this is tied to the class action lawsuit they joined, when this goes to court stock up on the popcorn – this could be what gives Piers Morgan what he deserves and is why he is leading the charge against the Sussex’s.

        There are reasons why the Cambridges have become more accessible and visible lately, esp with this new keen narrative.

      • Nic919 says:

        To date Keir Simmons, Tom Bradby and someone on GMB named Maguire have indicated there is a larger story on the departure.

    • A Guest says:

      There is too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere. Whatever it is it’s big and it’s bad.

      The courtiers were and probably still are worried about a tell-all interview where Meghan will call out the racism and sexism.

      The money issues with the foundation have been touched on briefly when the yearly reports came out last year but were quickly dropped.

      I think it has to do with William and Kate.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      Yes I agree it’s something terrible that happened and I can’t imagine what Harry discovered. I hope the Private investigators who went sniffing for information on their lawsuits found some juicy information. Perhaps texts leaked to the Dim or Fail from the Cambridges. Or Perhaps they set a trap and the Cambridges took the bait. The fact that they referenced only the Cambridges’ name on Their website sends a signal to who the biggest culprit it.

    • Belli says:

      That might be what Harry was alluding to when he said “If you knew what I knew…”

      • Becks1 says:

        This is a general comment to this particular thread – but I agree that something big went down. I don’t think it was just financial. I think there is something more personal to it than that – Harry called william out on the finances, and will got nasty. And maybe there was some sort of fight where things were said that can’t be unsaid (racial slur?)

        But this is definitely personal. Yes this is about the press and their intrusion and attacks on Meghan. But there is something else here too. I think the most obvious theory is that Harry found out Will’s role in the Great Smear Campaign.

      • VS says:

        @Becks1 ——- I have seen all the suspicions around who is behind the smear campaign; I think it is all of them
        Question for you: why didn’t they go after Andrew? wasn’t he the one with a building scandal? why Meghan? or is it because they recognize that with Brexit, someone like Meghan is an easy target?

      • Becks1 says:

        They didn’t go after Andrew because he’s blood and the queen protects him. Also, his “scandal” is a REAL thing -he likely committed a crime and aided and abetted a truly horrendous person who DID commit crimes. They did throw some “tidbits” to the press – about how Charles is the one who convinced the Queen that Andrew had to step back, about the fight among Andrew’s staff (Andrew’s and Charles’s staff?) but most of that focuses on the PR and optics of it. They aren’t going to leak anything that actually incriminates Andrew, even if it would be a bigger scandal than anything in recent royal history. It was much more of an effective and “harmless” distraction to toss them Meghan.*

        Also, the GSC against Meghan was already in full swing by the time the Andrew “mess” came back to the forefront. And by that point, it was really easy for the press to lump her and Andrew together – the poor queen! She has a son who raped a teenage girl AND she has a granddaughter in law who likes avocados!!!!!

        *Harmless as in initially, the extreme attacks against Meghan didn’t hurt the royal family. There were some whispers about where the attacks were coming from, or why wasn’t Kate working, but nothing significant. The attacks weren’t harmless in terms of how Meghan and Harry were affected, obviously. And of course now the royal family looks awful so someone overplayed their hand.

    • Amy Too says:

      Whatever the “thing” is, it’s something that causes Harry and Meghan to leave, but ALSO has caused the RF to be extra pissed at Harry and Meghan. Because the whole RF, from the queen on down, are NOT acting in their best interests right now, doing their usual “keep quiet and calm, don’t make waves, let everyone do what they want” kind of way. They are punishing the Sussexes.

      I’m wondering if whatever the thing is that Harry found out, be it the affair, or the issues in the Cambridge marriage, or the financial/legal problems with the foundation, maybe Harry was the source of it getting out? Maybe he didn’t leak directly to the press, but maybe he told someone who told the press? I can see how that would set the entire family against him, especially William and Kate who are now forced to sell their kids and feed the press constantly to keep the affair and/or shady finances out of the press. This might also explain why Charles and the Queen went from being welcoming and openly supportive of Meghan, to burying their heads in the sand and refusing to make statements calling out the press. The RF could have considered all the intense leaking and smearing to be a proper punishment for Harry letting out whatever he knew. Especially because the RF doesn’t want their one and only “golden couple” heirs’ “prefect family and marriage” image shattered. Will and Kate have been the couple that the whole RF is hoping will save the monarchy with their great relationship and cute kids and supposed relatability/normal/wholesome image. If that was shattered, it could really hurt the royal family. No one likes or is excited for Charles. He’s just the thing they have to endure to get to Will and Kate.

      So we’ve got the reporters saying it’s a legal issue: Will was threatening to sue over Rose, anything foundation related is probably protected behind lawyers, and if it’s to do with leaking, Meghan has her ongoing court case. We’ve got Harry continuing to allude to “if you knew what I knew…” making it seem like the public might know a little but not the whole story. And we’ve got the Cambridges suddenly working with and feeding the press constantly. So: will does something horrible that upsets Harry. Harry tells someone about it and it gets out in the press. Will and Kate start/intensify the smear campaign, constantly feeding the press and hardly hiding it because its a revenge punishment and they don’t care if Harry and Meghan know it’s from them. And queen and Charles not wanting to get involved, hoping the brothers work it out between them. The smear campaign starts to get racist and drags Meghan and Archie into it, spiraling out of control. Harry and Meghan leave, instead of taking their punishment like they were meant to, also taking their knowledge with them and Harry keeps alluding to it ever so slightly here and there. The RF is so angry about it all that they’re actively punishing him and Meghan now, even though it goes against their own best interests and makes them look horrid and petty. Maybe the thing Harry knows would make them look EVEN WORSE than they do now if it comes out? And they look really bad right now.

  47. Shoshone says:

    I think that the tabloids, RF, RR, racists and robots are actively working to try to destroy H&M’s brand before they even get started. They are brigading, vilifying and trying to overwhelm with bad press and internet trolls any individual or organization that allies themselves with H&M. How would a small or medium size non- profit or charity be able to stand up against the onslaught? I am also really concerned that Trump will do and say even more to try to ride the bad publicity wave against H&M. His actions could really ratchet things up.

    I think that it is getting so bad that even people like Beyoncé, Oprah, Gail King and the Obama’s might be starting to think twice about being openly supportive. Gail King just got massively attacked over a legit question about Kobe’s past and it almost destroyed her brand. H & M need to tread very carefully indeed.

    • Guest says:

      Oprah and Gail were on camera openly supporting them. Oprah’s brand is so big the royal family and the media buddies are nothing compared to her. Gail’s attack had nothing to do with harry and Meghan.

    • MsIam says:

      You don’t know Americans then. This is just the kind of fight we love.

    • Guest2.0 says:

      Those people you named, Beyoncé, Oprah, Gail King and the Obama’s have been openly supportive of the Sussexes and it’s highly doubtful they would abandon them due to racist media mistreatment. If anything, those people would rally around the Sussexes.

    • VS says:

      You are obviously NOT american……… There is no way Beyonce, Oprah, Serena W, Gail King or the Obama (especially MO) will turn their back on them…….as Guest2.0 said, those people would rally around them because very few know better than them, what it takes to be successful while being a POC. The jealousy, the envy, the constantly moving goal posts, having to work twice as hard to get half of the recognition
      1) the Meg vs Kate narrative; one so mediocre that she can barely string 2 sentences together; is the same as Michelle vs Melania
      2) Serena W —- everything she does is attacked. She spent years not playing at Indian Wells because of racist attacks there
      3) etc….
      Please focus on UK tabloids, those people you mentioned are way out of their league

  48. Liz version 700 says:

    Please excuse my rambling, I have a migraine and may not be as articulate as I (hope) I normally am. My heart breaks for this couple even as I root for them and admire the them. Meghan is a class act. As a white woman who married a brown man it can be heart breaking to see what your color privilege has caused you to miss about how the world works, how some of your friends work and how some of your family works. I am blessed with a very open minded family. Harry discovered in heart breaking Clarity that he is not similarly blessed. The idea that you would use and ramp up ignorance and racism to attack your son/brother/grandson and his family for greed and pseudo power is so beyond disgusting. It is truly amazing that anyone born into the royal family actually manages to lead a semi-normal life. They are abusive, every single one of them appears to be doing “the anger dance.”

    As for the tumbler drama folks, we see you. You can try to take over this site, but we see through it. Ask yourself, why do I hope so badly for a couple I have never met to divorce? With my criticisms of Will & Kate I have never hoped for bad things to happen to their family. I see bad things coming due to their choices, but I would never root for those kids to be put through a public “Royal” divorce. Ask yourself, Why do I obsess over them failing? What makes this biracial couple so different that some of you signed a petition to object to their marriage? I would ask “why does being hateful and ignorant appeal to me?” I will take my flaws any day over being so hateful that You can’t even let one blog exist where others shine a light instead of wallowing in hate. Reasonable people can disagree on names and what the next move of a charity should be, but the Tumbler folks have some genuine issues. For the sake of your children, friends, the world I hope a few of you overcome them.

    • You said it very well Liz version 700, even with a migraine. Thanks for sharing your experience with us.

    • VS says:

      You said it really well……..hope you beat that migraine!!!

      The haters spent so much time hating on Meghan that they have no time to fill out her ‘survey’……so that should tell you all there is to know!

  49. June says:

    I was reading their company is called SussexGlobalCharities.com
    So Harry will be speaking to big corporations? Sounds extremely boring to me. But I hear they will make oodles of money.

  50. Nic919 says:

    Pointing out the double standards that that Queen has applied regarding the use of royal and HRH when it comes to Andrew , Beatrice, eugenie, the Michaels of Kent is not the same as saying the Sussexes are 100% right. It’s pointing out the difference in treatment that so many seem to have trouble acknowledging. It literally says on the royal family website that the Michaels of Kent earn private income and work for the Queen. There is no reason why this couldn’t have been extended to Harry and Meghan. And Andrew is making money off the table by simply lying about it.
    But Harry and Meghan going off to earn private income is the thing the media freaks out about.

  51. Shoshone says:

    I think that it is time for them to post a really cute picture of Harry, Meghan and Archie holding an adorable puppy. They should just slip one out there on IG. It would break the internet. I live all the way across the Atlantic Ocean but I’m pretty sure that I would be able to hear Prince William’s head explode. (Figuratively, of course. No actual violence intended.)

    Of course then we would all have to hear from the Daily Flail about how some “expert” (I am really starting to suspect that they might be finding some of these “experts” in a local drinking establishment) feels that they are not holding the puppy correctly.

  52. Vanessa says:

    I don’t have a problem with the Sussex statement on their website I actually read the whole thing and it seems to me like the palace is playing games with the Sussex . The courtiers leaked the royal name banned allowed this narrative to run wild for days not allowing the Sussex’s to properly defend themselves or answer questions It’s all about control the Sussex and damaging their reputations further this time in America . If William can bully the press in not reporting on his allegations of a affair why can’t Sussex finally push back on all the lies that palace allows to be published about them .

  53. aquarius64 says:

    The theory of something going down with William and Harry…what could it be?

    William is the one funding Toxic Tom to do the hit pieces on Harry and Meghan. He said he will still sell pictures and do interviews; but he only got £16000 for that mock-umentary. He said in that mess “the royals owe him” and he let it slip about his contact with KP chief minion Jason on GMB. You don’t do a years-long campaign unless you are getting A LOT of money for it. The BM is paying Bad Dad peanuts – probably as cover for the real money source. The 30 Day interview threat may be a signal to KP (or whoever) that his price went up.

    • Amy Too says:

      That definitely fits with both “something happened around the wedding,” AND “it’s a legal issue that we can’t talk about fully” that we’re getting from some royal reporters. And remember there was one report saying that William was responsible for Bad Dad being used in the media all the time. Harry and Meghan were still under KP at the time of the wedding. Any plans to accommodate Bad Dad Markle and get him to the wedding would have gone through KP. He would’ve been talking to Jason and the courtiers there. What if they suggested he do the weird pap shoot he did “getting ready for the wedding”? What if they suggested he talk to the media and tell them about Meghan’s childhood and sell photos “because people are really interested in getting to know her and her family”? What if they suggested he back out of coming to the wedding at the last minute (because Charles wanted to walk her down the aisle—could explain why Markle seems to hate the royals now)? Maybe KP gave the media Markle’s contact information and sent them to him for “comment”‘ about Meghan and the wedding.

      It could all have been to either expose Meghan’s horrible family and make Harry think twice about marrying her. Or it could have been to just overshadow the wedding and how popular the couple were. Or just to drag Meghan down a bit so people would know she was related to horrible, embarrassing people. Who knows. But if Meghan and Harry had shared their worries and reservations about her father with Kensington palace and then KP specifically weaponized him against the couple for whatever reason, that would truly be unforgivable. And it might have all come out when Meghan’s lawyers were getting her case against the media (which is based mainly on the press relationship with Markle!) ready.

  54. 2cents says:

    The RF strategy against H&M seems highly effective in the short term, but will weaken the monarchy in the long term, post QEII. The republicans love the royal infight, making the monarchy appear more dysfunctional, out of control and out of touch with reality. Closet republican PM Boris Johnson is preparing a new constitution and not only will he throw the Queen under the bus in it (like he did last year) but also the entire monarchy. Why share the power with a ceremonial puppet head of state? Move over CharlesIII. The right wing establishment is coming to overthrow your reign! This is just the overture!

  55. Florence says:

    The way Harry’s family have treated these two is APPALLING. All the rule-changing, the leaks, the smearing. I hope the monarchy falls hard on its ugly face and takes them all down. May Harry, Meghan and their family thrive.

  56. qtpi says:

    I’m convinced H and M found out some terrible things about who has been leaking what. Then got the hell out of Dodge.

  57. GuestOne says:

    Also part time working royal Prince Michael has a charitable foundation which looks based in Russia which is called the Prince Michael Foundation which you can link to through royal family’s website. i know most don’t know who he is but couldn’t you argue it seems like a royal affiliated charity?

    And I will never understand the Andrew situation& the Queen who we are always told is about sacrifice& duty above everything. When he had to step down as a trade envoy following being seen with Epstein after he left prison in 2015, he was already embroiled with scandal over links with dictators, arms dealers& for comments denouncing a serious fraud investigation which is a political intervention. At the time foreign office officials said they were glad to see him go. How is it those who are concerned about Harry& Meghan maintaining the Queen’s values didn’t phase him out then& how will they explain his inevitable return to front line royal duties?

  58. Sofia says:

    This website was one of the few positive Meghan sites. And now it’s being overrun by the Fail commenters

    There are plenty of sites where you can give criticism to the Sussexes where most people will not push back on you and will in fact agree with you

    So don’t complain that CB isn’t one of them. Find the sites I’ve mentioned above and stay on them. Otherwise you’ll just get into random arguments with people on the internet.

    • GuestWho says:

      I’ve seen the crazies on twitter talk about trolling this site. What they want is to get in random arguments with people on the internet. It is all they have – it somehow fulfills them. It’s the same brexit/maga fools who honestly don’t care if they’re wrong. I’d say ignore them, but I’m guilty of engaging with them too. Smart people want to impart knowledge and assume people will be able to parse out fact from obvious fiction. They aren’t capable – and we should all stop trying. They don’t even understand how they give themselves away on every comment they make.

  59. Sofia2 says:

    Oh for fucks sake there are plenty of sites where you can be critical about the Sussexes

    So why don’t some people find those sites and stay there instead of trying to drag the one positive Meghan site?

    • Gingerbee says:

      Exactly Sofia. This is the only pro Meg site that I know, plus some IG pages. Yet, the trolls still find they way way on those IG pages and spread their bile.

  60. GuestOne says:

    Also looks like trademark applications for SussexRoyal were withdrawn in January so why the reports it was still being discussed. Dodgy all around

  61. L4frimaire says:

    There are receipts on Twitter showing the Sussexes withdrew the Sussex Royal trademark January 14. I’m not linking because I’m lazy but this is not recently dropped on them. They are not going to get in it with the royal press and play games. They are done with it. They have seen the absolute worst in both the Royal family and the British tabloid press from the get go. They know who they are dealing with, and how difficult they’ll make things because this is just same sh*t, different day.

  62. Lizzie says:

    I think there are similarities in how the Queen mishandled Diana’s death and the stepping back of PH and Meghan.
    When Diana died the Queen said and did nothing. Tony Blair convinced her what a huge mistake she was making then she went to the memorial and made a statement. She needs a Tony Blair today. She has underestimated the public again.

  63. Marivic says:

    Please the British media and trolls should just stop blasting and bashing the Sussexes. Prince William and BP courtiers should stop feeding the media with lies and more lies that all stem from jealousy and hate of Prince Harry and Meghan. Live and let live. Live and let love.

  64. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I can’t wait to read what history says about our North American ROYALS. Mrs. Meghan, with the help and commitment of the hubs, has officially and undeniably stopped the wheel. Maybe before it’s all over, she’ll break it, and we can call her our Khaleesi of The Great Northern Americas. The breaker of royal balls. Mother of change.

  65. Meg says:

    When i stood up to toxic people in my life they responded with shock too, they really do think theyre not only entitled to treat you poorly but they get to tell you how to respond to their crappy behavior

  66. aquarius64 says:

    I wonder about the security statement. I guess the family went along with it. The reason for the past years of threats – does that include Bad Dad

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/pagesix.com/2020/01/27/meghan-markles-father-challenges-prince-harry-to-man-up-and-duel-with-him/amp/

    This clown threatened Harry’s life. I don’t care if he claims it was just a joke I don’t think Scotland Yard finds it funny. The RPOs probably made a threat assessment and provided strong legal grounds for Harry and Meghan to stay away from Dad and keep Archie away. I noticed none of the British press picked up the second interview, only American. I wonder if the BM realized Evil Papa Smurf crossed the line and the Coven will be blamed if anything happened.

  67. June says:

    I was just reading Sussexes are likely to purchase a Malibu house.
    They are “looking to relocate from their house on Vancouver Island.” Maybe they got fed up living next door to the International airport. ✈️🚁🛫🛬🛩

  68. It's a dry heave says:

    It must really chafe H&M’s butts that the queen is spending so much public time and energy on petty new limitations for them, even as she ignores the bigger issue of her beloved son, Prince Pedophile.

    The fact that Meghan is more disliked by Brits than that Gray-haired Girly Groper is revoltingly incomprehensible to me.

  69. bluemoonhorse says:

    JMO when you separate from toxic family you think you can negotiate. It’s an optimistic viewpoint because you are still thinking the whole thing can be rationally discussed and planned. But each time you get stabbed in the back, your mind wakes up a little bit more to what these people you love really are about. This is a gradual process – few people cut a family member out of their life immediately.

    It’s only as everything goes to h&ll in a handbasket do you realize that nope, what you initially suspected was true. You were being gaslighted, you were being told lies, told you were messed up and frail, acting like an unreasonable toddler, etc… And as it becomes more obvious you realize the decision to leave was indeed the right one and you don’t look back anymore.

    In the long run all this bro-haha about the “royal” usage just proves to M&H that they were right to make the decision they did. They will never go back.

  70. blunt talker says:

    Several posters stated already that something really terrible happened with the royal family and the Sussexes. It was so bad that the Sussexes decided to step down. I have read several reporters making this very same statement. I truly believe something happened in an awful way. Just as many people love as hate them. They are going to let their little light shine going forward. Since the Brits in particular the tabloids insists on showing their asses and depleted brain power, Harry and Meghan are known in all corners of the world now, regardless whether you like them or not this whole planet knows who they are. These tabloids, and talking heads have made them a household name. This makes people more curious about them and what they are planning. Harry does not want his child involve with the monarchy. He has made that pretty clear. I wonder why noone discusses this as to why he wants to leave and take his family out of it. The only way to do this is keep some distance and teach his child the values and life lessons he fills is important. How do people think he feels knowing his brother and him were brought into this institution through parents who really did not love each other and Queenie helped her son with his backdoor dealings to be with Camilla, Allowed the media to hound her and did nothing to stop it. Queenie has been covering up for decades her Pedo Andy ‘s horrible behavior. If there is a heaven or hell, I feel that the queen will be heading for the latter. I truly pray for the Sussex family and hope they will be safe with God’s speed.

  71. blunt talker says:

    PS-Piers Morgan better watch himself. Everyone is not taking kindly to his constant raging about Harry and Meghan. This includes some very wealthy and powerful people in this world. Don’t be surprised if he finds himself in a ditch somewhere stanking. I think he showing signs of dementia. Slobbering and foaming at the mouth about a couple minding their own business. This big shitstain I am sick of hearing about and when I look at him all want to do hold open his mouth and shit down his throat. He needs to be Snoop Dogged on air.

  72. blunt talker says:

    PS-Piers Morgan is an overweight shit stain with depleted brain power. To keep ragging about a couple with a small child shows he is evil and demonic. Somebody needs to Snoop Dogg him on the air and see how he responds to that kind of talk.

  73. boobra says:

    i just feel so genuinely sorry for this couple. it seems that no matter how much money and status you have, it’s all for naught if someone is truly DETERMINED to hate you and manages to turn the tide against you.

  74. Heather says:

    I don’t read this as terse whatsoever. I read it as a legal document, dissolving a business. And that is precisely what is happening here. The Royals are beholden to the taxpaying public to serve and do ‘work’ on their behalf.
    The departure of the Sussex’s isn’t just granny waving goodbye, dabbing her tears with her handkerchief as they pull away down the driveway.
    The only part that I think may have been an inserted request by the Queen, or maybe Charles, was the one year review. They are leaving a door open for Harry, to be sure this is the way he really wants to go.

  75. Where'sMyTiara says:

    The crux of the media’s tantrum here, is that they’re hopping mad that they’re not getting exclusives. H&M going direct to print via their own vehicle, and not releasing announcements through any of the palaces (which in the past always bit them in the butt b/c the grey men would sell them out in the worst way possible), cuts out the palace courtiers who wish them ill, who are providing most of the tabloid with their fodder.

    The courtiers desperate to be relevant to the BRF, and the tabloid press desperate to be relevant to anybody, are throwing one pants-crapping tanty after another simply because Harry & Meghan changed the paradigm for interaction. Hazza & Megs refused to continue to be part of the old abusive model, and that’s why everyone’s flipping the eff out.

    Reminded of something I read in a book, The Dance of Anger by Harriet Lerner. When trying to get out of abusive patterns, the people profiting from the abuse will escalate their behaviour to get you to revert back to the pattern you’re trying to break out of.

    “You’re changing the relationship dynamic – that upsets me/makes me afraid/makes me have to take responsibility for my behaviour – I feel uncomfortable about this change, HOW DARE YOU MAKE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE. CHANGE BACK. GO BACK TO THE WAY THINGS WERE SO I CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE AGAIN.”

    That’s how it played out in my family when I set new boundaries for interaction, and that’s how I see it playing out in the BRF and in the press here with H&M. Harry & Meghan are “reclaiming their time” and taking back their power, and that’s why everyone from BRF to the “White Trash Markles” to the Tabloid Press, who have all been straight up abusing H&M is doing their nut over the changes.

    • L4frimaire says:

      This reminds me of something I heard on the TED radio hour, when talking of abuse, referring to both physical and emotional. The language used takes the responsibility from the abuser and puts it on the victim of abuse. It goes from John punched Mary, John verbally abused Mary, to Mary was hit by John, Mary got hit. Then we start saying, why did she let him hit her, what did she do, why does she stay? Puts all the burden on her, while no one asks, why is he hitting his wife and why do we let him get away with it? This is what I’m seeing. Why don’t they keep quiet, show some gratitude, why does she wear expensive clothes, she knows what she signed up for? If they did what we asked, then we wouldn’t hound them out the country and keep hounding them. I think if the Sussexes can manage this early stage well, they’ll be ok, but this will never be easy, so at this point, they need to protect themselves and their child.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Exactly. Everyone commenting and reporting on this has to put the lens back where it belongs – on the abusers. The palaces (BRF & their courtiers) and the media, who are equally gleeful participants.

        I would add that these stories trying to paint BRF members as soulfully reflecting on the split is just their whackadoo attempt at damage control, but it also points up the fact that THEY ALL KNOW THEY’RE DOING HARM, AND ARE IN THE WRONG.

  76. L4frimaire says:

    This comments section has gone of the rails. Lots of disappearing posts and broken threads. Anyway, go Sussexes!

  77. Cara says:

    Shoebox Projects are a thing in the South. Franklin Graham has one. This one referenced by Jessica is registered to Tye Roy and you can find articles about him and the foundation back to 2010. So as fun as it would be, no play on roi here.

  78. David says:

    @Anon. Post 28. It really is a shame.

  79. Guest says:

    its why there are so many new names – even neutrality is no longer allowed.

  80. S808 says:

    I’m confused. HRH Princess Beatrice and HRH Princess Eungine are not working royals. HRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not working royals (and again make money using their HRH titles). Under your analogy they were never hired and yet have retain titles. Before Edward and Sophie were working royals, Sophie had a PR business AND her HRH title.

  81. David says:

    Good luck to Meghan and Harry. I hope they are nice and relaxed and just going with the flow like a sea turtle at this point. They know this is the crap they’ll deal with forever and keep it moving in positive directions.

  82. notasugarhere says:

    ‘Guest’ if you’re going to continue with the anti-Meghan tumblr tropes? At least pick a unique name.

  83. Nic919 says:

    It’s called double standards and hypocrisy but many are pretending that there are actual “reasons” for doing this to Harry and Meghan. Being too successful with their foundation seems to be the biggest one.

  84. June says:

    I think it’s about royal birth rights, nothing to do with whether they work or not. Like the security issue. Harry is entitled to free security because of being born into the Royal Family. The British public want to keep supporting the Royal Family, so that’s that.
    Gets confusing, I know.

  85. David says:

    Being successful in any way is not wanted.
    ETA: paedophilia is prepubescent children.
    Calling Andrew a pedophile is demeaning all sexual crimes.

  86. ira says:

    What foundation? They haven’t started it and now they confirm a foundation is no longer in their plan.

  87. C-Shell says:

    Right. While Epstein falls both in the hebephile and ephebophile ranges, Andrew (so far) can only be classed as an ephebophile. So far.

    ETA – not sure what’s going on with this comment section today, but this is in response to @David’s comment 45.

  88. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    ‘Ephebophile’ just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
    Would you prefer ‘molester’, ‘groomer’ and ‘rapist’?

  89. MsIam says:

    So I guess you are ok with what Andrew did then? And by your definition it sounds like 10 and 12 year olds would be fair game since that is about the age puberty starts. You are demeaning to all of those girls who were trafficked by your dismissive attitude. Gtfoh, seriously.

    ETA: This comment is for @David but somehow it ended up down here.

  90. Guest says:

    I have not made a single anti-Meghan post. Not one.

    If ‘tumblr trope’ is synonymous with finding fault where there is none, then perhaps we should all avoid them.

    ETA: This was in response to # 43 — things don’t seem to be showing up where intended.

  91. Lulu says:

    ‘Guest’, none of your posts have been remotely anti – Meghan. I’m kind of flabbergasted that suggesting the Sussexes are not 100% right in something is to be taken as an attack on them. There are a great many celebrities and public figures that we can love whilst also having a discussion about the merits of what they have chosen to do. It’s one of the great things about blogs like this that we can have these discussions and amicably disagree when there’s a difference of opinions.

    On this particular topic, I would say that I think this shows the Sussexes pulling a Beyonce with their first statement may not have been the best approach. I understand their need to get out of a toxic situation and they were fully entitled to just release their statement of ‘we’re completely done and have peaced out of this whole mess – details to follow.’ But I don’t think that they should have made statements about exactly what their roles were going to be and how those things were going to happen if that happening was contingent on the agreement of the Queen and other people like the actual government who hadn’t actually said yes. It would be a lot easier to fill in the blanks with their plans and go on with their lives when it had all been finalised rather than saying ‘X is going to happen’ and then having to very publically walk it back when this was denied. Having to make announcements like this when they could be focusing on their exciting upcoming projects just seems to be an unnecessary distraction.

  92. Coffee says:

    Yup. I second this.

    I understand there were concerns about leaks at the time the statement was released, but even then they couldve gotten ahead of the news cycle and released a generic statement. There were so many ways to go about doing this and come out the winner.

  93. notasugarhere says:

    Lulu, another new name, go back and read previous posts by ‘Guest’ with similar writing style, theme, and tenor. If they want to claim their previous anti-Meghan posts weren’t theirs? They need to pick a unique name.

  94. 10KTurtle says:

    ^^^THIS @Lulu! I get jumped every time I dare suggest H&M could have been better prepared, because *well actually* it’s perfect that they didn’t even have a plan for housing and they can borrow houses from billionaires indefinitely and everybody else has to pay for their security because the precious little lambs can’t help it! They were/are in a terrible situation and the urgency forced their actions, but they were simply not ready for this. I believe they can recover, but they don’t seem to be getting or taking very good advice right now. I want them to move into a position of offense and drop a bunch of action bombs like ready-to-publish benefit cookbooks & charity clothing lines & Invictus events. Trickle one out every day they’re being paraded around like hostages when they go back next month and dominate the news cycle!

  95. Cynthia says:

    I think the question you should be asking yourself is why they felt the need to pull a Beyonce. They’ve ignored leaks before so that’s where I would start. After the documentary, his “family” should have known (if they didnt before) he and Meghan were not happy, especially with the press coverage. Instead of saying nothing or something positive, William via his courtiers told the press that Harry is “fragile”,etc… How would you feel if the people who should supposedly have your back run to the one thing they know makes you unhappy?
    Then their Canada location leaks. Then Harry and Meghan’s plan leaks, after months working on their proposal, here come the press setting the narrative. Especially since he didn’t even want to put his proposal in writing for fear of it being leaked).
    I’m not even in their shoes and this is extremely infuriating watching it unfold from behind my computer screen. Can’t imagine how pissed off they must be, especially Harry.

  96. MsIam says:

    H&M’s statement was in response to the leaks from the royal PR. Funny how you and the others like you always shake your finger at what H&M have said or done but never at the others. The rest of the royals have just as much blame in this as anyone because they are either allowing their staffs to leak without repercussions or they leak it themselves. Either way they suck and somebody needs to call out their bullsh*t.

  97. Shoshone says:

    They are being forced to rebrand and switch horses mid-stream. The RF appears to be changing the rules which is keeping H&M off balance and unable to formalize their plans. Highly effective tactic.

  98. Liz version 700 says:

    Only for as long as H&M play by the ever changing rules. They don’t own the rights to these two people. Eventually they will stop returning phone calls.

  99. GuestWho says:

    Except that H&M withdrew the TM app over a month ago. This was not news to them.

  100. C-Shell says:

    All of those, actually. Just responding to David’s valid point. Sorry if it came across badly.

    ETA – LOL! Okay, this is responding to Andrew’s Nemesis (love that handle), currently at 56, but who knows where all this will end up?

  101. whatsupdoc says:

    What is with the gatekeeping? What is wrong with new commentors? Why choose to be EXclusive when you could be INclusive? I’ve been a lurker and have seen the comments labeled as “Tumblr trolls” but IMO they weren’t hateful toward the Sussexes, rather pretty neutral to be honest.

    People definitely stan the Sussexes here and it’s great to be big fans of them but sometimes it seems to get taken too far. When people cannot even share their opinions on the mistakes the Sussexes make (because they’re human and nobody is perfect) without having other commentors calling them names, telling them to leave, throwing up strawmen arguments, and in general just getting attacked over and over, it’s gone to the extreme. I think the Sussexes have done a lot of amazing things and I also think they have screwed up at times over the years i.e. the incredible funds the Hubb cookbook generated vs. the exorbitant cost of Meghan’s wardrobe, or Harry’s travalest initiative vs. him going to that Google camp thing. I think it’s MORE of a disservice to the Sussexes to put them on a pedestal and I doubt it’s what they would want.

  102. David says:

    Yes. Call him ALL of those names. This is in response to Andrew’s Nemesis as well.

  103. aquarius64 says:

    This is not a question of legitimate reporting when it’s clean and backed up with facts. When straight up lies are blended in it’s hard to discern.

  104. ennie says:

    I think that the “mistakes” are things that have been done by other royals, practically everything they’ve done is not new or unheard of. It’s being used by the press to stir up controversy. you can make a list and write the names of the other royals who’ve done the same or very similar. These complaints seem uninformed, disingenuous or plainly with an agenda against them. If you are going to make observations, at least be aware that other of his relatives have done just so, and gotten away with it.

  105. notasugarhere says:

    whatsupdoc, there’s a difference between new posters who are adding to the conversation vs. clear tumblrs/haters who come here to try to disrupt a pro-Meghan site. It bothers them to no end that CB is pro-Meghan, but we will keep calling them out and labeling them as the trolls they are.

  106. Lorelei says:

    @Whatsupdoc I agree with everything you said. The comments here are so tiresome lately.

  107. Ignoto says:

    The exorbitant cost of Meghan’s wardrobe? You have no idea of the exact cost of her wardrobe and neither does anyone else including the tabloids. Unlike the other Duchess, she came equip with clothes and accessories perfect for her new role. Keep that energy the next time Kate wears yet another new drab McQueen that resembles the many other drab McQueens she owns. As for Harry, I haven’t seen any evidence that he actually attended that particular event. It’s best not to rely on tabloids for your news. When it comes to Harry and Meghan, the tabloids love to spread lies to the gullible.

  108. VS says:

    another TROLL

    The day I will see your likes complain about the cost of all royal women and their husbands, I will take you seriously……….

  109. Olenna says:

    @Whatsupdoc,
    You know what might help your argument? Try to avoid repeating tabloid ‘news’, and using hyperbole and generalizations.

  110. GuestWho says:

    You gave yourself away in your comment. I’ll let you try to figure out where. Take it back to twitter.
    ETA – original comment gone apparently – but @ignoto picked up on the BS too.

  111. MsIam says:

    @10k if they do it your way H&M they will be accused of flaunting themselves and upstaging the rest of the royals. Why do people like you keep insisting that H&M should play nice and follow rules when they are having bricks thrown at them left and right?
    And yes people are calling you and the others dumb sh*t out whenever you toss it out there.

    ETA: comments seem to be ending up everywhere. This is in response to #72.

  112. rachel says:

    Same. Maybe it’s a generational thing, but i had to look up “tumblr” to see what it was.

  113. 10KTurtle says:

    How would stealing the news cycle from the rest of the family be “playing nice?” I just want them to have a workable strategy, and they have not shown that they do yet. Like I said, they crashed out without even having their own home address that isn’t on the grounds of Windsor Castle, and they’ve been playing catch up ever since. What do you think they should do?

  114. GloryS says:

    @ #89 Wouldn’t it be very boring if everybody here agreed on everything??

  115. Nic919 says:

    If Dan Wootton had not leaked this story in January then a lot of these discussions would be happening behind the scenes and things would only be announced once a decision had been reached on both sides. The person who leaked this to him should be publicly outed and if a staff member fired for breach of confidentiality. Why the royal family haven’t turfed the ones who leak to the press by now is inexplicable…. well except if the leaks are coming directly from family members who can’t be fired.

    It’s entirely unfair to say that Harry and Meghan look disorganized when we know there was a leak of the entire thing before any decisions had been finalized. Both sides have been dealing with the leaks that aren’t stopping and providing a statement to clear up some of the lies being put out there isn’t wrong. It’s what most normal people do.

    And this statement is their strategy of what they are doing moving forward. It couldn’t be any clearer.

  116. ennie says:

    Ignoto, you forgot: bespoke

  117. Calibration says:

    And Kate’s clothes are bespoke these days,so there’s no price tag any more. Very convenient. And when she wears high street clothes they get tailored. It’s a total con job on gullible idiots.