The heir to the UK throne needs a few pounds????

Bet she outlives him too!

iu
 
Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan? I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it. Did she do something awful? Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.

Makes two of us ... I wonder also. Could it be because she is foreign/not British or at least European?

I never heard of her before she started dating Harry. . Seems everything we learn about her is coming from negative press coverage there.
 
Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan? I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it. Did she do something awful? Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.
It does seem odd.

I like Harry and hope that he and his little family can find peace and happiness at home or abroad.
 
One thing I noticed was the "North America" terminology. Let's see what nations comprise N.A.? Well, there's Canada. Gees, there's another one.....it's right on the tip of my tongue......... oh yeah, it's Guatemala. No offense Canadians, "North America" means LA or NYC. I think the idea of Harry not living in the UK would be hard for Brits to take. CNN had a blurb about this. Apparently, nobody at the "palace" knew this was coming- not even Grandmama. Somehow this doesn't sound like a happy family.
I wonder what "royal duties" are, and how necessary are they?
And hollydolly was correct. It's not like you or I moving to another nation. They need security and protection, which is , now, all up in the air.
 
Last edited:
Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan? I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it. Did she do something awful? Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.

She's a narcissist on a 'royal' scale and pretty much every move she makes is consistent with that pathology. The narcissistic behaviors go back further than her relationship with Harry to family, childhood friends, first husband that she dumped as soon as she got a stable TV role.

The narcissism is behind her monetary excesses. She spent more money on clothes her first year as the Duchess of Sussex than any European female royal ever has. Google the excesses of her NY baby shower.

Then there's the parade of staff members who've quit in her 20 months reign. They could probably shed the brightest light on all that's wrong, but non-disclosure agreements are required for that type job.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure monetary excesses always = narcissism.

The Queen Mum spent fortunes on gambling and personal items, so much so that her daughter had words with her several times after paying her exorbitant debts.

Over spending can be a sign of narcissism but there's a lot more to that aberration.

IMO, both Meghan and Harry planned to get out early on. All we've ever known about Meghan is what the press tells us. She, like anyone else never really knows how things are until they've lived it.

The Brits don't need Harry; there's enough spares to go around. I wish them luck.
 
Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan? I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it. Did she do something awful? Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.
It could be a mixture of all of them. But, mainly, it's the fact that royals are supposed to follow all the protocols and Meghan defied all of them, she seemed resolute in changing all the rules and do things her way. The royals have to follow lots of rules, many of them silly, but that's the way it is and she knew about them, Harry was constantly telling her what to do or how to do it. One, small example of her refusal to follow the rules is her public display of affection, okay in normal life but the royals are not supposed to do it. Also, there were stories about how badly she treated the help, many quit on her or she fired them.
 
Last edited:
I have a different question altogether: What's with the queen dragging her purse everywhere she goes, particularly within the palace itself? Perhaps she needs change for vending machines scattered throughout the place - gotta satisfy the urge for a Snickers break now and again? Maybe she can't figure out how to put a tube of lipstick in every bathroom vanity in case of a touch-up emergency? What the heck?

Even on the Netflix show, "The Crown", which is presumably very accurate about those kinds of details, even in her early 20s she's hung on to her purse like the crown jewels themselves are inside.

Strikes me as very odd. Odder still, she's got it firmly on her arm in the official photo displayed in this thread.
 
I have a different question altogether: What's with the queen dragging her purse everywhere she goes, particularly within the palace itself? Perhaps she needs change for vending machines scattered throughout the place - gotta satisfy the urge for a Snickers break now and again? Maybe she can't figure out how to put a tube of lipstick in every bathroom vanity in case of a touch-up emergency? What the heck?

Even on the Netflix show, "The Crown", which is presumably very accurate about those kinds of details, even in her early 20s she's hung on to her purse like the crown jewels themselves are inside.

Strikes me as very odd. Odder still, she's got it firmly on her arm in the official photo displayed in this thread.
I've heard she uses it for signaling. However she places it has a meaning like "get me away from this person" or whatever. But I agree, it does look so awkward and out of place at times.


"As it turns out, the queen uses her purse to send signals to staff. In an interview with People, royal expert Hugo Vickers shared what her handbag really means: To indicate when she’s done with (or wants to leave) a conversation or engagement. Also, the queen’s bag also has the power to end dinner. Rumor has it, if she places her purse on the table, it’s a sign that dinner should finish in five minutes. And, if the handbag is put on the floor, it means she needs to be rescued from her dinner conversation immediately."

"In addition to using her handbag as her secret language, the queen also carries some essential items with her — including chocolate cake. Discover what’s in the queen’s purse, ahead."


https://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-sty...eens-purse-including-why-she-carries-it.html/
 
Last edited:
I have a different question altogether: What's with the queen dragging her purse everywhere she goes, particularly within the palace itself? Perhaps she needs change for vending machines scattered throughout the place - gotta satisfy the urge for a Snickers break now and again? Maybe she can't figure out how to put a tube of lipstick in every bathroom vanity in case of a touch-up emergency? What the heck?

Even on the Netflix show, "The Crown", which is presumably very accurate about those kinds of details, even in her early 20s she's hung on to her purse like the crown jewels themselves are inside.

Strikes me as very odd. Odder still, she's got it firmly on her arm in the official photo displayed in this thread.
I've heard a lot of good opinions about The Crown, I'm going to have to watch it. I'm always disappointed how films always fiddle with the facts, and you and other reviewers have said it's pretty accurate.

I didn't pay attention to the purse, but her outfits and hats are all the same style mostly, just different fabrics and colors. I always wondered why such a conservative woman wore those loud colors, and have recently read it's so that she can be seen also by people far away in the crowds.
 
Shortly after the wedding I expressed my foreboding, in this forum, that she would turn out to be another Wallis Simpson, and so it has proved.

With the background of his mother she saw Harry was vulnerable and grabbed her chance will his big brother mentor was temporarily distracted.

I suspect she sees herself as a satellite royal in America, in the best Hollywood tradition; she is, after all, an actress.
 
I'm intrigued by the couple's statement, especially by the reference to becoming financially independent. Form what I've been abled to judge, by what others says is the couples net worth, they can barely scraped by between $30-45 million of their own money. I suppose that means flying coach when they visit N. Amer. Mentioning 'royals' and money in the same sentence is a "Firm" no-no.
 
When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
living child, it used to be son, but that has changed, so
that statement really means that it should go to Princess
Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
go to Prince William as he will not be in line as his father
never had the Monarchy to pass on!

That is why I said in may previous post "unless there has
been a change", of the Rules/Laws about succession or
lineage, that is how it is.

Mike.
 
I've heard a lot of good opinions about The Crown, I'm going to have to watch it. I'm always disappointed how films always fiddle with the facts, and you and other reviewers have said it's pretty accurate.

I didn't pay attention to the purse, but her outfits and hats are all the same style mostly, just different fabrics and colors. I always wondered why such a conservative woman wore those loud colors, and have recently read it's so that she can be seen also by people far away in the crowds.
I hated it I could find fault in everything .
I'm a real Monarchist (not to say I';m a great fan but I have a real interest in the history of the monarchy right up to the present day) and I know so much about them, I just can't watch anything about the royals or the Victorians come to that of which I've also studied, without picking holes in it, and to expect anyone to believe that Olivia Coleman was the queen is just stretching credibility too far for me.. and the same goes for much of the cast!!
 
When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
living child, it used to be son, but that has changed, so
that statement really means that it should go to Princess
Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
go to Prince William as he will not be in line as his father
never had the Monarchy to pass on!

That is why I said in may previous post "unless there has
been a change", of the Rules/Laws about succession or
lineage, that is how it is.

Mike.
This is interesting!
 
When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
living child, it used to be son, but that has changed
, so
that statement really means that it should go to Princess
Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
go to Prince William as he will not be in line as his father
never had the Monarchy to pass on!

That is why I said in may previous post "unless there has
been a change", of the Rules/Laws about succession or
lineage, that is how it is.

Mike.
I thought that too since they changed the rules about daughters inheriting the crown after Elizabeth II became the queen. But I read recently that in William's children's case, Charlotte will only become queen if her two brothers are not available for some reason or dead. So, the gender bias is still there.

EDIT = I guess whoever said the above was wrong, Charlotte is next in line after Prince George

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne
 
Last edited:
I found this under Quora.com Someone asked if Charles dies before the Queen, if Andrew will become king. Here's the answer, all very interesting:

The way that the order of succession works is that it exhausts one line of descent before moving to the next. The first child, and all his descendants, then the next.
So there's her Maj (in the order of succession 0: the current monarch), Her first kid Charles (1), his first kid William (2), William's first kid George (3), second kid Charlotte (4) and third kid Louis (5)… having run out of William's issue, we go one step back up to the second of Charles' kids, Harry (now 6th in line, after Louis' arrival). With the arrival of baby Archie, Charles’ line takes up the first 7 places in the order of succession.

Now there's a blip, all of the descendants of the monarch's first child are listed so next should be the second child, right? Wrong: the next-born child is Anne, Princess Royal. But until William's wedding just a few years ago, we had male primogeniture, boys got precedence over girls. So Anne is the second child, but she is not next in the order of succession after Charles' line.

So it skips to the third child because he's male: Prince Andrew, Duke of York is currently 8th in line to the throne with his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie 9th and 10th. Prince Edward, next, ditto, starting at number 11, and his two children. And then, after all of her brothers, Princess Anne, currently in 14th, and her lot. Anne’s youngest granddaughter Lena Tindall is currently 20th in line to the throne, and is the last of the Queen’s direct descendents in the order of succession.

Abolishing male primogeniture hasn't been backdated, but it does mean that even though the third Cambridge baby, Louis, is a boy, Princess Charlotte is still ahead of him in the line of succession, and so would her kids and grandkids be in turn. Princess Anne, and her little niece Lady Louise Windsor (Edward's older child), will be the last members of the British royal family to have their place in the order of succession be substantially altered by their sex.

Andrew would become king if the entire of Charles' line were gone: Charles himself, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry and baby Archie. It's all but impossible.
 
Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Megh

Because she's a control freak, like her mother-in-law.

There's only room for one prima Donna in the Royal Family, as Diana found out.
 


Back
Top