What do you think of prince Harry and Megan moving to Canada

pause

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 8:42 am

amother [ Tan ] wrote:

I do think that once the queen dies it's time for the monarchy to die as well. There is nothing particularly royal about the succesors. Let them cash in whatever chips they have and move on.

I believe the Cambridges have the sense of duty and humility needed to reign. The queen, at age 21, said "I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong." She became monarch at 25 and has been a sample of devotion to her country. From what we see, the Cambridges have got the same qualities.

amother

Seagreen

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:09 am

Sebastian wrote:

I wonder if she is doing this so she won't have to raise Archie in the UK when they divorce.

There is a law that the reigning monarch has legal custody of his/her descendants. (It definitely includes grandchildren, I'm not sure about great grandchildren. it was put into law many years ago when a king was not on good terms with his adult child and wanted to have a say in the grandchildren.

So the Queen has legal custody of Archie. and when Prince Charles becomes King, he will have legal custody of Archie. According to my understanding, she could make all decisions for the child, although it seems that she allows the parents to.

In the event that Prince Charles abdicates for Prince William, then maybe? Meghan might get custody? I'm not sure of the law then.

amother

Turquoise

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:11 am

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

It’s interesting that imamothers overwhelmingly dislike Meghan.

Amother, how can you say Diana wasn’t a good model, look at all of her charity work and how she connected with the people despite her difficult life.

imamothers overwhelmingly disliking Meghan means nothing.

This is an olam hasheker.

Diana did a lot of good, but she also had mazel as far as her public image.
She was not a mentally well person, and even if she were, her personality in a healthy person makes for a not a very easy spouse.

amother

Seagreen

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:14 am

Although Meghan did seem to want money and fame (as many people want), it does seem that over time, everything became too much for her. Constant press surrounding her and publicizing and criticizing every move she made.

It makes sense that she would want to get away. and Prince Harry saw how the press hounded his mother, even when she was dying. It makes sense he would want to shield his wife from what his mother went through.

I remember in the recent past there was news claiming they would want to move to Africa. I guess when they went there, it wasn't the ideal place, so they decided on North America instead, which makes sense since she has lived there in the past, and Canada is officially connected to England.

I do think however, that no matter what they or anyone else do, someone will be unhappy about the arrangements.

amother

Turquoise

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:16 am

Sebastian wrote:

so why is she alienating him from his family and moving him to another country? If hes struggling, new changes are the last thing he needs!

Also, you are ignoring her long long history of dumping ppl when she s done using them

in what way is she alienating him from the family?
you could have a daughter-in-law living close by who looks good to the outside world, but hardly considers her husband's family to be family.......
you could have one across the Atlantic who considers you family....

Having a difficult father is hardly called dumping people.
Being married and divorced is hardly called dumping people.

Sebastian

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:19 am

amother [ Turquoise ] wrote:

Will and harry are estranged now
Harry said so publicly. They were very close, closer than he was with anyone else. Kate hasn't spoken to them in months.

Meg was close to her uncle, he got her to speak at the un. He wasn't invited to the wedding and her cousin she featured on the tig and on and on
It's the mo of a narcissist

amother

Wheat

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:27 am

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

She was a good role model as a charitable person; she was not at all a person on whom her children could model themselves if they wished to be stable, psychologically healthy people.

Fox

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:31 am

amother [ Wheat ] wrote:

Firstly, there is no British law that says that royals can't work in whichever industry they want. It's just not done, it's not the sporting thing to do, or however the upper class put it, because of the unfair advantage they might be supposed to have. Also, Andrew's daughters work full time (when they're not vacationing) and seem to be doing okay.

I defer to your knowledge of this -- I remember reading it somewhere, but I can't recall where and can't find a reference to it, so I may have mis-remembered or whatever I read may have simply been wrong.

amother [ Wheat ] wrote:

Secondly, I wouldn't have said that Diana was the best of the lot when it came to functionality. (I would put the Queen in that place, since she had a stable upbringing with a happy family.) Diana grew up in just as dysfunctional a family as her children. She was abandoned by her mother as a six year old child, and had a very unhappy, very unstable childhood, according to herself. She had serious mental health issues and was living very recklessly when she died. She loved her children but she was not a great role model for anything much.

What I was trying to say was that Diana made a concerted effort to provide her sons with a healthy upbringing. She overturned a number of royal precedents to try to raise them as normally as possible. As you note, the Spencers were a mess, too, and still are -- I believe Diana's brother, the 9th Earl Spencer, is on his third wife. His oldest daughter, who is 30, recently announced her engagement to a 61-year-old multi-millionaire.

I think Diana, despite all her mental health issues and describing herself as "thick," possessed a smidgen of self-awareness and understanding that rearing children is not the same as breeding horses or training Corgis. That put her head-and-shoulders above anyone else in the royal sphere.

amother

Wheat

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:37 am

amother [ Turquoise ] wrote:

Was he really a difficult father? He put her through private school and university and she spent a lot of time with him and had only nice things to say about him on her blog. I think that at a certain point in Meghan's social rise he just became embarrassing. He's old and overweight.

Regardless, cutting off a difficult father is not called dumping people, but cutting off father, siblings, uncles and aunts, grandparents, school friends, work friends, agents, everyone connected with your previous life? Meghan doesn't have any friendships more than 3-4 years old.

amother

Mistyrose

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:40 am

pause wrote:

Well, first off, if you've followed my posts, you'll know that I did give her a fair chance. I wanted to like her clothes and her cute American accent. Instead, I was disappointed by the way she dressed, acted, and spoke (in interviews). She has behaved in a most un-royal manner on a number of occasions which I won't put forth here.

Harry and Meghan owe us a respectful representation of British royalty. Because that's who they are. If they choose to not be royals anymore, they shouldn't have any benefits at all associated with their titles.

I don't think any taxpayer money should go to the royal family but I'm American so my opinion doesnt count.

Harry doesn't owe anything to you. He's made it clear that he's not interested in being held to that kind of scrutiny and wants to step down. But that's not good enough for you for... reasons?

If Harry and Meghan remain public figures it's because of people like you who continue to pay them any attention.

amother

Smokey

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:41 am

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

Harry has come out many times speaking about his poor mental health and how difficult the death of his mother was and how badly they handled it.
I watched an interview of a staffer who worked at the palace at the time of Diane's death and afterwards and she said she is embarrassed about how badly they handled the situation (no therapy, insisting they grieve in public).

He has said that photographers flashes give him PTSD and if you read different things reporters and photographers in the press corp have said it seems like meghan enjoys the spotlight and harry HATES it.

I think that harry is on the verge of a nervous breakdown and meghan is the only one with the audacity and irreverence to say "so just quit".

I don't think this is Meghan stealing away harry from the royal family. I think its meghan saying "the whole thing is stupid anyways, why let it destroy you more"

Most people dont have the privilege to move to a different countries just because they are struggling with mental illness. Most people dont have the privilege to afford to pay for therapy to deal with their mental illness. Harry and Meghan could have used this as their cause, to remove the stigma of getting help for mental illness and to show people that you cant just run from your problems-you have to deal with them face on. Instead they ran away and are not even dealing with the mental illness (is Harry even in therapy?).
That is not what good leaders do. Good leaders stay and lead by example. A good leader would have shown the world that you cant just run and hide from your problems but you have to deal with it appropriately. And that is a missed opportunity for Meghan and Harry who just ran away like cowards instead of facing it head on and showing the world that you can deal with all kinds of cr@p while still taking care of yourself and your mental health. They are not the kind of role models the world needs especially in this day and age when so many people struggle from mental illness and cant run from it but its still a stigma to get help.

amother

Ruby

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:42 am

Sebastian wrote:

If you are going to repeat tabloid talking points, at least make sure to get them right. Her uncle got her the internship in Argentina almost 20 years ago. Her speech at the UN was her own accomplishment. There is no way anyone can know exactly who was invited to the wedding. There were hundreds of people and the guest list was never publicized. The woman she featured on the Tig is her niece (not cousin) Ashleigh Hale (Samatha's estranged daughter). It is quite possible that she was at the wedding.
I have followed Meghan since her early days on Suits and so much of what is reported as factual and then repeated by imamothers on this thread can easily be verified by doing a little proper fact-checking.
- There was never a marriage annulment (this is a lie spread by tumblr trolls). If a record of one existed, I promise the media would have unearthed it.
- Contrary to the picture painted of a social climber who discarded her family & friends on her way up the ladder, Meghan has many strong and close relationships running back decades. Lindsay Roth, Benita Litt, Genevieve Hills, Katharine McPhee and many more old and trusted friends. She is hardly a narcissist for cutting off toxic relatives (the toxicity of her paternal family is self-apparent), her ex and the best friend who sided with him.
- Her chef boyfriend's family, her colleagues and the many people who actually know her have only good things to say about her.

In my years of following her, she has always come across kind, intelligent and fun.
She is as imperfect a human being as any other, and deserving of the same decency and respect we would accord anyone else. I know that this thread is just good fun, but who can blame her for choosing a life that does not include being a source of entertainment to strangers around the world.

amother

Babyblue

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 10:48 am

amother [ Smokey ] wrote:

Ok.. but they do have the privilege of doing that.

They don't want to be leaders or role models or inspire other people.
They didn't choose this life. They were stuck in it because his great whatever decided he wanted to own land and killed a lot of people.

What he is saying is that he doesn't want this life, he never chose this life and he OWES YOU ABSOLUTELY NOTHING- not leadership, not inspiration, not a role model. Just because you decided to look up to him doesn't mean you should or that he has to fulfill your expectations

amother

Smokey

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 11:05 am

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

Meghan wasnt born into this, she chose it. Harry was born into it and that is the only reason why they have the "privilege" of running away. If he wants to give it up and not deal with it then he needs to give up all the money and privilege that comes attached to it. No more trust funds, no more expenses being paid by his father, no more security, no more of anything that comes attached to the privilege of being a royal.

But that is not what is going on. They still want to hold on to the title and have the privilege of holding on to the trust and get money from his father. If he truly wanted nothing to do with it then he would have given everything up altogether. Instead, he is staying in an expensive mansion and using his name to make money. That is hypocrisy which is what people are upset about (especially taxpayers who have funded his extravagant lifestyle up until now.
Like I said previously, he should use his trust fund to repay the taxpayers and not take anything else from anyone in his family because that would be benefitting from something he doesnt want to be a part of anymore. Let him get a real job, you know like flipping burgers at mcdonalds or something to support his family and live a quiet life away from the press or anything that will bring them further fame instead of taking advantage of the royal family money/name.

amother

Mistyrose

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 11:10 am

There's 2 different things here.

There should be NO taxpayer funded perks. That I'm in complete agreement with but seems the British public likes seeing their money go to this clan. <Shrug>

About how the family settles their personal estate and manages their funds is their own business. It's just like any other child of wealthy parents. Charles and Elizabeth are free to set whatever conditions they want. I dont see why they need YOU to weigh in.

sky

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 11:16 am

amother [ Mistyrose ] wrote:

Britain gets back tremendously from the royal family in terms of the tourist industry. More then they pay in.

The royal family is responsible for maintaining the palaces and grounds. The money would instead have to go to paying staff to do it and they probably do a better job and for less money.

A lot of the money paid to support them comes from land and funds the royal family gave to Britain. It’s not nessearily money collected as taxes each year.

amother

Smokey

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 11:27 am

amother [ Mistyrose ] wrote:

I dont disagree with what you are saying but what I am trying to convey is that if Meghan and Harry dont want to be part of the family then they shouldnt be taking any of the money that comes with it (even if Charles is nice enough to give it to them) but should instead be working on becoming financially independent. So they should get real jobs, move out of the mansion they are currently staying at and move into an apartment they can afford on their salary just like any other couple trying to make it in the world. Otherwise, they are nothing but hypocrites who claim they dont want to be part of the royal family but still take advantage of it and benefit from it (with the money as well as the name/title).
This is especially true if they want to be seen as "progressives" who dont benefit from money that was "stolen" by ancestors who "killed lots of people" because they wanted to "own land" as someone mentioned above. In that case, the money is not theirs to begin with and they shouldnt be taking anything from Charles or other family members either.
You cant have it both ways.

pause

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 12:04 pm

amother [ Ruby ] wrote:

I don't care about the rest of you post, but I blame her for choosing to marry royalty and then absconding. Don't want the life that includes being a source of entertainment for strangers? Guess what, me neither! That's why I didn't marry a royal prince, a rebbish einikel nor the son of super wealthy parents.

You make choices, you gotta live with them. If you don't, you can expect people to talk negatively about you.

imorethanamother

Tue, Jan 14 2020, 12:08 pm

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

If this were true, then why would they go on record saying that they want to move to LA? (After Trump is gone, says the Social Justice Warriors). I mean, if you want the quiet life, LA would not be on my top ten list.