Andrew Morton: The Queen is ‘far more understanding than a mother’ to Prince Harry

Royal Ascot, Portrait of HRH Queen Elizabeth the Second behind TRH Harry the Duke of Sussex and TRH Meghan the Duchess of Sussex

Andrew Morton has been giving tons of interviews to support his new book, Elizabeth & Margaret: The Intimate World of the Windsor Sisters. While some of the gossip about the Queen’s relationship with her sister is interesting on its own, I find it odd that Morton is using so much of his promotional time to talk about Prince Harry, Meghan and Princess Diana. I mean, he was the one who wrote the bombshell biography of Diana with Diana’s help. He’s very entrenched in the various royal courts and all of that. But what I don’t get is why he’s going above and beyond to draw the comparisons between Margaret and Harry. At this point, WHY? He did the same when speaking to Vanity Fair:

Why the Queen has always adored Harry: The Queen has shown “infinite patience” towards her grandson Prince Harry because she recognizes the challenges faced by younger royal siblings, according to biographer Andrew Morton. “I think the Queen knows that being the spare is hard and a part of her recognizes that Harry was… sometimes a bit of a lost soul just like her sister,” Morton said. “She has always wanted to protect Harry and I think in part that’s because she watched Margaret fall victim to the system. Shutting out Margaret didn’t help and the Queen has learned from that. She didn’t want history to repeat itself with Harry.”

Harry & Margo were the rebels: “When you compare personalities, Harry is like Margaret, a royal rebel. Margaret once said ‘disobedience is my joy’ and you see some of that in Harry. The Queen also knew Margaret sometimes felt like an outsider and I think that’s why she has made sure the door is always open for Harry to return to the royal fold. She will have a lot of empathy and sympathy for him because she grew up watching her younger sister act the role of the spare, which is not easy.”

Margaret struggled without a defined role within the Firm. “Margaret often felt that she was in Elizabeth’s shadow. She was four years younger, and tried to make up for the age difference by wearing the same clothes and doing the same things as her older sister, but there was a hierarchy and Margaret always came behind the Queen. She found out very soon in life that she would be number two.” Morton compares it to when Harry would complain as a child that William got the more attention, or felt left out when, for example, William alone would be invited for tea with the Queen Mother. Princess Diana would make an extra effort with Harry and insisted that her boys should be treated equally, but the fact was William was born to be king and as such was always treated differently.

The challenges of being the spare: “The Royal Family is a hierarchy and if you’re not number one that can be challenging,” said Morton, who points out that the issue of the heir and the spare has historically been problematic within the Royal Family. “There are also many parallels between the relationship between Elizabeth and Margaret and William and Harry. William is dutiful, serious, considered, cautious, just like the Queen. I think one of the main differences between Margaret and Harry was that Margaret was always loyal to the crown.”

The Queen has been more forgiving towards Harry. “She has a lot of affection for Harry. She was there the day Harry lost his mother and has been there for him ever since,” Morton said. “She has deliberately taken him under her wing. I think as a grandmother she has been far more understanding than as a mother at times.”

[From Vanity Fair]

This is an absolute mess from Morton, I’ll be honest. The analysis is all over the place. “Margaret was always loyal to the crown” – yes, because Harry was “disloyal to the Crown” when he watched his family heap racist abuse on his wife and understood that he needed to get out. If Margo watched Lord Snowden and her children being scorned and abused by the family, she would have gotten out too, or at least she would have wanted to get out. Morton just wants to analyze the familial dynamics in a vacuum without acknowledging the change in circumstance between how “the heir” (William) treated the Spare and his wife. Elizabeth was never gleefully pushing negative stories about Margaret so that Liz could hide her own bad storylines. Morton acts like Harry left the UK because he could not stand being the spare, and it was a lot more complicated than that. Morton knows that too. So why is he doing this?

HM QUEEN ELIZABETH IIWith HRH PRINCESS MARGARET(Countess of Snowdon)Seen outside Clarence House onthe Queen Mother's 95th birthday.Bandphoto Agency PhotoB21 010077/G-30  04.08.1995

From left, Queen Elizabeth II, Meghan Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry Duke of Sussex, Prince William Duke of Cambridge and Katherine Duchess of Cambridge watch the RAF 100th anniversary flypast from the balcony of Buckingham Palace, London, Tuesday 10th J

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Related stories

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

69 Responses to “Andrew Morton: The Queen is ‘far more understanding than a mother’ to Prince Harry”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Rapunzel says:

    Funny, I never had to ask my grandmother or mother to be “understanding” or “patient” with my desire to… *checks notes* get a job and be financially independent.

    • Restless bitch face says:

      100% this!

    • HeatherC says:

      I also never had to ask for an appointment to ask for that “understanding and patience”

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      I wish Andrew Morton had the guts to write the Meghan book based on truth rather than pivoting to write this pathetic drivel no one cares about. The whole family is full of crap and intergenerational trauma. Harry got himself and his family the hell out just in time.

  2. Lauren says:

    His book on its own isn’t getting any attention so he has had to make this whole comparison between Baldingham and Harry and Betty and Margo and try and draw parallels between situations that aren’t the least close to each other. Margaret liked the title, the lifestyle and the ceremony, Harry has never cared for that. I get that for them it’s unthinkable to be born into such great privilege and wealth and give it up, but not everybody is made to live under a microscope or wants to do it.

    • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

      Margo *was* given the option… BUT her children would be taken out of the line of succession. She would NEVER give up ANYTHING that took herself or her kids out. She would’ve NEVER left even if there was SM like there is today, and heaps and heaps of abuse was dumped on her kids/spouse (though considering how she ended up feeling about Snowden, she might not’ve minded that!).

      So no… she’d take it, and most likely have her own cadre of “leakers and sneakers” in the Grey Men, and just played ball.

      • GraceB says:

        You make a really good and interesting point @TheOG. I think as outsiders, we look at this like Margaret, her children & Harry and his children are so far down the line of succession that why do they even care about remaining in it or keeping their titles. Yet for them it seems to really mean something and I suspect that something is the deeply ingrained idea of class.

      • anotherlily says:

        Margaret might have lost her HRH status if she married a divorcee and she would certainly have lost her role as a member of the Firm with official duties. However she would still be in the line of succession along with her children. Her children have a place in the succession by birthright and it cannot be removed unless they become Roman Catholic. If you look at the longer list there are a number of people who are on the list but barred because they are RC. This includes some members of the Duke of Kent’s family. The children of a RC royal would not be barred,even if they were raised as RC, unless they made a personal choice e.g by being confirmed in the RC faith.

        Harry will be 5th in the line of succession when Charles is King and will stay at that point until William’s children start their own families. This puts him high in the line of succession for at least the next 20 years. If Harry removed himself from the succession he could not remove his children and Archie would take his place.

        From what Harry has said he is concerned to protect Archie’s birthright and to raise him in the knowledge of his heritage, which includes his African/American grandmother as well as British royalty.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        Margaret loved the good life and her life as a royal. It would be unthinkable for her to give up all the trappings. She was notorious for being spiteful and mean spirited. No way would she walk away from everything for love.

      • Becks1 says:

        @anotherlily – no, that was the deal that Margaret could have made to marry Townsend. She would have kept her place in the line of succession and HRH, I think even her royal stipend and duties, but her children would not have been in the line of succession (I forget the reasoning, someone like Nota or DigitualU would know.) She said “no thanks” and rejected Townsend at that point. The story about how she was “not allowed to marry the love of her life” was basically just a cover.

    • Isla says:

      Yeah exactly I honestly don’t think Margaret would’ve left because she was too superficial she love the money and the Jewels and the lifestyle and would’ve never wanted to let go of it. She didn’t like nor did she want to be a commoner

  3. (The OG) Jan90067 says:

    “Why” is Morton pushing this? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It sells.

    • Myra says:

      That’s the only correct answer. Everyone has cashed in by name-dropping Harry and Meghan. Apparently, only Harry and Meghan are not allowed to make money off of their own name. Careers have literally been launched on the backs of Meghan and Harry – podcasts, book deals, documents, fashion websites, blogs, failing morning shows etc. There is a reason these people hate Omid Scobie.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      I would guess his book isn’t doing well, and Harry & Meghan sell, so . . . Also is he trying to break into the US media, etc.? Whenever it’s a brit, I immediately wonder what their angle is.

  4. TeamMeg says:

    Another difference: Elizabeth and Margaret did not start out in life as heir/spare to the throne. True, they were still fairly young girls when their father became King, but that wasn’t the original plan. Whereas with William and Harry, those roles were given at birth.

    • LightPurple says:

      And their father was actually the spare.

      • Lola says:

        And was incandescent with rage when he was “forced” to take over the throne, as was his wife, the Queen Mother.

      • Becks1 says:

        Well, its interesting, right? Because if everything had played out the exact same, with the exception being that Edward never abdicated – but still married Wallis, no children, her father still died shortly after World War II – then Elizabeth would have been queen, it just would have happened about 20-25 years later when Edward died.

        But as it was, her father became king when she was, what, 10? And Margaret was 6. So she was the heir presumptive from that point on, unless her father and mother had a son. So while her route to the throne was a bit more circuitous than William’s will be, it was pretty set from a young age that she would be queen.

  5. Lola says:

    Some of this is just so funny, all these old biddies who read Andrew Morton, projecting themselves onto William and Harry. Do they honestly think Harry, as a little boy, was seething with jealousy that William “got to” go for a one-on-one tea with the Queen Mother?! LOL! How many little boys at that age do you know who would even be willing to do something like that, and would have to be forced into it with a screaming tantrum? I’d bet my next paycheck that William was incandescent with rage that he was forced into something like that while Harry got to stay home and play.

  6. Feebee says:

    Nobody gives a shit about his book, so this is what he talks about to get it out there.

  7. Requisiteperks says:

    So something I’m personally struggling with is if Harry “watched his family heap racist abuse on his wife and understood that he needed to get out” I don’t fully understand why his titles are prominently displayed on both his ventures.

    This bothers me because I kind of feel like if the family was so racist, why even propose and want a 1/2 in, 1/2 out situation? I also liked that right after they stepped down, Harry would go by just his first name. But for all the commercial ventures, the titles are always there.

    Also, I totally get that he has a right to use the title because he hasn’t relinquished it and it hasn’t been stripped away from him. That’s not my point. His grievances against the family are still present. So, what I can’t reconcile is wanting to continue using a title that was given by your racist family and institution (which by all accounts, Harry is saying they still are).

    If i got out of a job that I found shameful (idk, Facebook!) I wouldn’t define myself as an ex Facebook employee in my future ventures – I’d just say I was in tech doing “x” role. I just think there was a way to brand Harry for his many talents without reliance on the title. He could be Harry Mountbatten Windsor but it feels like a conscious choice to be titled in his American ventures- seems inconsistent.

    • Becks1 says:

      They wanted the half-in half-out, IMO, as respect to the Queen and Charles – Harry didnt want to fully step back from his royal duties, he understands what is involved with being born royal, they really did just want to cease interactions with the royal rota. Looking back that was naive, because even if they didnt have to participate in the rota anymore, the RRs still would have written about them non stop as we have seen. But I think initially they were hopeful that there would be more breathing room if they weren’t working with the rota.

      I don’t understand the obsession with Harry using his titles. Why shouldn’t he use them? Even if he stops using Duke of Sussex, he’s Prince Harry by birth. That’s his brand. People aren’t going to call him Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, LOL at that for days. He’s Prince Harry, or just Harry, and that seems to be working for him right now.

      And his title was given to him by his grandmother, who by all accounts (including Harry’s), he’s still close to and there is no bad blood between his grandmother and him and Meghan.

    • Dee says:

      They tried to make it work because they thought they could do good (see all of H and M’s good works, investments and goodwill with charities). Their proposal to stay in halfway was rejected by a family who desperately needed their charisma, good ideas and goodwill. The Firm is his family. He wasn’t just leaving a business; he is leaving his family as well. You’re correct that he doesn’t need his title to do all the wonderful things; however, that title is part of his name he has had since birth. Meghan’s title is part of her married name as Harry’s spouse. Why should he give that up, because the Other Brother and his minions are toxic? Changing his name at this point would serve no purpose; it would only give the toxic royal rota more to scribble about. One could argue that the ones who are being unprincely and unroyal in their leakings and their pedo adventures and their racism should be the ones without titles.

    • CindyP says:

      He’s a prince by birth; it’s not a job title. His father is the future king. Why should he give that up?

      • anotherlily says:

        Exactly! Also, his dukedom is a gift which is now his property and Archie has a legal right to inherit the dukedom. Archie is being raised without a title by his parents’ choice but he could use one of the subsiduary titles.

      • SarahCS says:

        This is largely what I was going to comment. It’s who he is and he has been a prince since birth. Why should he?

        I cut my toxic father out of my life but I’m not going to change my surname just because it’s the same as his. Thats’ mine.

      • Shelley says:

        @anotherlily, not by his parents’ choice. The royals didn’t give Archie a title, nor did they give him security! So just imagine, when H and M had joint engagements, Archie was left with the nanny and neither had any security! They had no choice but to leave. H said in the faux Greta phone call, he left to protect his son.

      • Robin says:

        Exactly. People keep demanding the Queen “strip” him of his title, but it would be like someone saying you can no longer call yourself “Ms” Smith or “Mr” Jones. They really don’t get the title business.

    • Rapunzel says:

      Harry has done nothing wrong. Why should he act like he has? It makes no sense for him to respond to the BRF’s racism by getting rid of the titles they gave him. That’s what they want so they can say “see? He’s no good.”
      Getting rid of the titles is punishing himself, not his racist fam.

      The best revenge for the BRF’s racism is to keep those titles and use them to thrive, to show the family that they aren’t dictating. And to use those titles to promote causes better than the rest of the racist BRF ever could.

    • Catherine says:

      So you’re okay with him using Mountbatten-Windsor which is the official royal family name but not okay with him using Prince which he has a blood right to and has been part of his name since birth or Duke of Sussex which was GIFTED to him by his grandmother. This is not like a job title at a company you use to work for. The titles have nothing to do with the treatment of him and his wife by his family. The idea that they are required to renounce their titles as proof of the mistreatment is victim blaming. If his comments are so egregious then the family should take them away or block them from using it as they did with the HRH and with the SussexRoyal foundation and SussexRoyal Instagram. Why haven’t they done that? Harry should not be expected to participate in a public punishment of himself. This is similar to people expecting him to simply give up his honorary military roles. There is no doubt that the minute he announced he was no longer using his titles that the tabloid would spin that as him disrespecting the Queen and the monarchy. After the South Africa documentary it was said and written by many that if they were so happy they should leave and support themselves. Well they left. They are supporting themselves. But now it’s all about well why are they using their titles. There will always be a complaint no matter what Harry chooses to do.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      As others have said, he didn’t leave a job, he left his extended family due to an unhealthy and toxic environment (that they are themselves victim to and part of). But his name, including his titles, is part of who he is. Why should he sacrifice part of his identity because other people are toxic?

      Also, I believe he truly hopes (or hoped) the monarchy as an institution can confront its racist behavior and transform. I think part of H&M’s so publicly putting Sussex on their ventures is to demonstrate that someone can indeed be royal, not be racist or sexist or hate-filled, and do good things that have real, positive impact on the world. They’re setting an example, IMO. A damn good one.

    • Fawsia says:

      Why are you struggling with what Harry does with his family? I found it amusing that White panties get twisted when it comes to anything Meghan. You sitting here writing a thesis to rant about if the Windsors are not racist! Girl bye

      • Rapunzel says:

        This argument that “if the family is so racist, Harry and Meg should just drop their titles” is just more holding POC and their allies to a higher standard of behavior, imo.

        Like, Harry and Meg’s racism claims aren’t true unless they drop their titles and live in a hovel and never take a job that pays more than five figures a year.

        But all the BRF has to do to prove they aren’t racist is say “very much not”

    • Amy Bee says:

      Yeah, is this concern trolling going here?

    • Bex says:


      That title is what’s owed for all the abuse. If the family wants to strip them of their titles, they can try it, and then everyone will be reminded how they didn’t strip the nonce and the Nazi sympathizer (despite having proof he collaborated with the Nazis. See Marburg Files) of their titles (and how the family continues/continied to fund them).

      Also, the idea that using Mountbatten-WINDSOR would suddenly make people not link him to that family is ludicrous to me. Next thing, you’d say he needs to start using Meghan’s surname.

    • equality says:

      Harry NEVER said anything about his family “heaping racist abuse on his wife”. Most of the racism charges were against the BM. The only racist thing said about the family was about concern over children’s skin color and that wasn’t saying all were involved. Harry, having come from the family, and having done questionable things in his own past, is probably hoping the family will learn and grow. He doesn’t want to reject them entirely; they are his family. His grandmother (“the understanding one”) gave him the titles as a gift. He has no issues with his grandmother (by his own words). Why would he throw a gift back at her?

    • Kalana says:

      Harry is a monarchist. The titles and the Crown are about more than than the family members who currently hold them. The people are temporary. Harry’s duty is to the Monarchy.

      I don’t think people understand what it means to serve the Crown. The people who hold the positions are temporary and are beholden to serving the institution. Otherwise, why not just give David and Wallis whatever they wanted. After all David was the King, right?

      • Carmen-JamRock says:

        Harry has moved on. Everyone knows the life he was born into. But now everyone also knows that he has CHOSEN a different path [see operative word in all-caps.]

        He is now living the life of a private citizen, doing targeted, voluntary public service (philanthropy) ; as well as private-sector work that earns him a living. His primary allegiance, as he has told you and shown you, is to his own family – comprising his wife and his two children. Full. Stop.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Requisiteperks, I think there are two issues here. First, let’s just for argument’s sake say they didn’t use the titles when they left. They would still be known as Harry & Meghan, and they would still be where they are today. In fact, they probably would have been even more news worthy because of the thrown away titles. IMO it wouldn’t have made a difference to their businesses/foundation.

      Secondly, I want them to keep their titles and do really great things–why? Because it shows that not the entire brf are racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. It shows that royal family members can do things not just differently, but better.

      I see no reason for the UK to take the titles, and I believe it would be a huge slap in the face to the Queen to give the Duke and Duchess titles back. I seem to remember reading many years ago that Harry (after leaving the military) had thought about leaving, but that he had promised the Queen that he would stay and find a way to work within the institution. That actually goes hand in glove with offering a half in/half out to the Queen. He was keeping his promise.

    • Isla says:

      That’s not the same though really is it? It’s like you working for your family company and then deciding to quit. Do you change your last name no. His titles ARE his name because they don’t have last names. Also the titles are not what hurt him it’s the people, the family, so I don’t really get the connection and what you’re not getting/people don’t get about it? It just feels like a) jealousy or b) faux outrage.

  8. Becks1 says:

    Nothing royal-related sells at this point unless it involves Harry and Meghan, so he has to make the connection between Margaret and Harry, even when it doesnt work.

  9. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    Pfffft. Harry was able to leave precisely *because* he was the spare.🙄

  10. Over it says:

    Another expert on Harry thoughts and feelings. God these people are all awful.

  11. Catherine says:

    Morton wrote a book about Meghan that didn’t sell because he couldn’t did up any dirt on her so now he has reinvented himself as an expert on the Sussexes leaving. My conspiracy theory is that he wrote this book about Margaret and Elizabeth’s relationship knowing that he could use Harry and Meghan and the rumored tensions between the Sussexes and Cambridge’s as a way to promote it. Then the Sussexes leaving gave him a clear angle. He has a clear agenda. Every interview he either insinuates or explicitly states that there is jealousy on Harry’s part. But the examples he gives just so show how toxic the family is and how the monarchy is more important than family and how the institution defines family relationships.

    • Morton is a horrible writer —- period, no matter whom he’s writing about. He’s a Rota🐀 that got lucky when Diana picked him to transcribe her tapes. I’ll give him this though…he’s a masterclass in how to stretch 15 minutes of fame into a lifetime. Irrelevant for sure, but then he’s just another 👑🤡 carnival barker.

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        I wrote on HelloCanada instagram, that Andrew Morton, has been doubting Meghan about her passport, and other personal items being taken away ftom her, and not being able to go out without permission. He even said, people had seen her at KP gate with Wholefoods bag, so it can’t be true, as I recall, that particular photo was takenn when Meghan was a girlfriend. HelloCanada deleted my comments. Morton only wants to sell his book by using The Sussexes’s names.

  12. Paperclip says:

    Yeah…he’s trying to preserve his brf sources. If he came out too strongly for h&m, he could lose them. Either that, or he never truly knew Diana, because some of his takes on h&m are pure crap.

  13. molly says:

    I don’t think the actions of the RF after Diana died are the examples of love and compassion they think they are. They made a shell-shocked 12 year old parade his grief to the world because of “duty” or some bullsh!t. I hope Harry never forgives them for that.

  14. MsIam says:

    Morton is just another Rota rat in the end. He knows he can’t write about the real dirt on the other royals, ie. Andrew, Rose bush, at least not yet. So he’s playing the “Harry come back!” angle. Harry has too many irons in the fire now for him to go back and resume his “role” in the family. All of the rota know this, they just like to pretend they don’t.

  15. Cessily says:

    I do not know if it has ever been pointed out, at least in what I have read, but Prince Harry is the same age as his mother was at her death. Now imagine waking everyday with the press attacking your wife as you are facing the age she was never allowed to live beyond because the paparazzi and tabloid press felt they had the right to say and do whatever to get the headline. How could anyone who lost their mother so young and horrifically not be traumatized and their worst fear would be it repeating itself.

    • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

      Gotta say, getting past the age your parent was when they died is a disquieting mind-trip. My mom died at age 49. The year I turned 49, *one day* after what would’ve been my mom’s 50th (our birthdays were *exactly* 6 mos. apart (April/October to the day), I just had *such* a weird “feeling”… went on for months. And when I hit 50… wow.. just really affected me for a while.

      Now, while I can’t assume Harry would feel this way, I’d pretty much bet it will really hit home on Diana’s birthday, as well as his own, this year.

      • Cessily says:

        I know the impact myself, I can not imagine the weight he carried upon himself especially with the media frenzy and hateful headlines being a daily if not hourly occurrence.. Just a thought.

      • Carrie says:

        I actually turned 41 today and my Mother died when she was 42. I really needed to hear this today ! I feel much more normal for being uneasy about reaching the age she died and lets hope outliving her.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        Happy Birthday, and hugs to you, Carrie! 🎂.
        What you are feeling is *perfectly* normal! 💜

    • Becks1 says:

      My parents are still alive, but my sister died at 37 and she was 5 years older than me. My 38th birthday was kind of a mindf*ck because of that – so much of my identity growing up was being “the youngest” and I wasn’t anymore. It’s a weird thing to “live past” an older sibling like that.

      I can only imagine how much stronger that emotion is when you “live past” a parent like that.

  16. Nic919 says:

    Morton is still perpetuating the myth that William serious one. He’s not he just has no charisma. He partied as much as Harry as a teen and young adult and was protected by media where Harry wasn’t. Now at almost age 40, William has done nothing of value unlike Harry and always tries to avoid doing any real work.

    • Ania says:

      Well, the constant protection from consequence is always a recipe for disater. And we are begining to see results. My mum’s brother was always „saved” by my grandparents, while my mum had to be the responsible one. My uncle is a horrible person, he effectively ruined his life by now. Let’s see what happens with Will by the time he’s 50. I don’t expect a pretty picure.

      • Isla says:

        Ditto with my uncle as well, it’s so funny with parents who do that, because it always ends up that the child they treat the best and outwardly favoured that will be the one to leave and mistreat them. William will leave Charles high and dry if not try and destroy him (I don’t think William has ever forgiven Charles, I think he finds him snivelling and quite gross), I think at some point, he will fall onto Harrys hands desperate to save and forgive him, but I hope at that point Harry will be strong enough to reject him.

  17. Lizzie says:

    Same comment as yesterday, the other brother was the one overshaddowed by Harry. The jealously has always been toward Harry not from him.

  18. equality says:

    The Queen thinks Harry is a “lost soul” and he’s not the serious one? Explain then why Harry is the one who survived 10 years in real military service, created charities on his own, and got big contracts and jobs on his own. We should all be so “lost”.

  19. MangoAngelesque says:

    So William is “…dutiful, serious, considered, cautious…” while simultaneously continuously incandescent with rage and winking his wee-Willy all over Toff-land, with Kate silently lynching at his back.

    Sure. Why not.

  20. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    Elizabeth and Philip are Harry’s last remaining connection to The Crown. I think the decision to strip both Harry and Andrew’s titles will occur when she’s gone. Given stories of William severing ties with anyone who is pro-Harry (and that probably occurred months ago) and the “William in mourning” articles do suggest a truth that Harry is now dead to William (Fun rumor I heard: William is under orders from both Elizabeth and Charles not to engage with Harry, and this is also at Harry’s request). Charles will follow suit and strip titles because he’s a coward and this fits with his “streamlining” to throw out anyone who doesn’t meet their values.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      They can go ahead and strip whatever they want, before or after betty and phil die. As M said in the Oprah intvw: “…If this comes with the loss of things…..well, a lot has been lost already.”

      HOWEVER, they better NOT try to prevent Harry from inheriting whatever is due to him from his grandparents. Same for when charlie kicks the bucket. Wutliss Willy will inherit everything, right? The monarchy and all its stolen assets PLUS all the hidden billions they hv hoarded in offshore accounts. But monetary and other inheritance that wd be due to Harry better NOT be fucked with. Harry now has access to high-powered lawyers so if they want to go down that road they can try it.

    • ABritGuest says:

      They can remove HRH. Act of Parliament needed for duke titles& it’s only been done for treason previously. That’s why the press were trying to pressure Harry to voluntarily drop title a few months ago- they knew it was a non starter for the queen. All those people who are dreaming of titles in their future aren’t going to support titles being removed on a whim.

      Bill is def communicating with Harry through the press so I agree they aren’t talking directly. Bill seems to be under a lot of pressure to deliver Harry at the statue unveiling.

  21. Emily_C says:

    I thought with the other post that he was going for some kind of historical distance regarding Meghan and Harry, which rings false when the subjects are still alive. But I felt like he was trying to say what other people think, without sharing his own opinion. And doing it badly and for an inappropriate topic, which is why it all sounded so weird.

    I don’t think that now. “More understanding than a mother” is obviously his own (strange) opinion. He sounds incredibly off, and I don’t expect this biography to be good.

  22. Alexandria says:

    Is there no intelligent person out there writing about these? Everyday I come across Celebitches who know more than these writers who did dodgy research. Kaiser or even Lainey should write a book that is miles better than all of these. We have had more screenshots and videos of their insanity since the 90s!