UK United Kingdom Royal Family / Royal Families Drama General Thread - formerly "Prince Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals"

1613740615135.png

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as "senior" royals and work to become financially independent.

_110441486_hi059012660.jpg


In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal - including the Queen or Prince William - was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is "disappointed".

Senior royals are understood to be "hurt" by the announcement.

In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision "after many months of reflection and internal discussions".

"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen."

They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while "continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages".

"This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity."

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were "at an early stage", adding: "We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through."

The couple's announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.

www.bbc.co.uk

Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals

No other royals were consulted before the couple's announcement, the BBC understands.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: The Camp of Saints Row, goodbudweiser, Executive Petrel and 23 others
Click to expand...
Sean Andalou said:
Meghan's brother-in-law in the news.

Prince Andrew reported to the POLICE after 'using fake name' amid saga around private investments company​


But technically any royal title is a legit name, and he's the Earl of Inverness.
He could also be Andrew York. Or use his mother's name Battenberg. Or Windsor.
I quick trip to Wiki reveals he's also Baron Killyleagh.

More aliases than the Mafia this lot. ;)
Click to expand...
If he signed up as Andrew, Earl of Inverness then yeah that's probably legit. Andrew Inverness isn't a person and or isn't a title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllieKat and Hubelublub
Hitman One said:
If he signed up as Andrew, Earl of Inverness then yeah that's probably legit. Andrew Inverness isn't a person and or isn't a title.
Click to expand...
Funny about that.

In the USA "Earl" was a fairly common given name, though now it's rather old fashioned and has a bit of a backwoods vibe to it.

But because it's a royal title, no one names a kid that in the UK.
It might even be a law not to do that?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Coo Coo Bird, madethistocomment and 4 others
Hitman One said:
If he signed up as Andrew, Earl of Inverness then yeah that's probably legit. Andrew Inverness isn't a person and or isn't a title.
Click to expand...
The thing is, there's no legal requirement to use your birth name in any official documents. I don't. I'm named for my uncle, but I've gone by a nickname for most of my life. It's on all my documents and my driver's license, except my birth certificate obviously. I never changed my name by deed poll; I just used it on everything until it stuck. A named director for a business doesn't have to use his real name as long as he's identifiable and doesn't lie about his address.

Sean Andalou said:
It might even be a law not to do that?
Click to expand...
No law against it, but IIRC the registry office might reject it as inappropriate.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Rambo, Clovis and 3 others
Kosher Dill said:
Yeah, I'm not sure these accusations are going to fly in the country where William and Harry joined the army as "William Wales" and "Harry Wales". Isn't that just what those no-last-namers do?
Click to expand...
The lawsuit is from one of the pathetic anti-monarchy groups that have nothing better to do. Andrew isn’t in trouble at all for this.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Clovis and Sean Andalou
Convallaria majalis said:
Ahh where has this thread been hiding? I’ve been getting all my Sussex snark elsewhere for no reason.

Kiwis, how far down the rabbit hole do we go here - do we believe the children exist? Moon bumps a go go?
Click to expand...
Everyone is different. I think that there are children, and that they are biologically related to Meghan and Harry, but they were borne by surrogates, thus negating their legitimacy in the line of succession.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, AssistantWeasel, madethistocomment and 4 others
Kosher Dill said:
I don't think the late Queen would have played along at all if the children were anything but real, legitimate, natural-born children of Harry.
Click to expand...
His description of his son's birth in his book "Wagh" is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read. Either he wasn't present at his own son's birth, or Meghan wasn't.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, madethistocomment, Clovis and 7 others
I had the pleasure of reading Spare. Ill put my thoughts here:
Harry has serious unresolved issues from his moms death. His paranoia of the press is breathtaking. He's naive and not bright at all. I get the feeling most of his friends all talk about how they feel bad for him behind his back. Harry is consistently incapable of reading a room or seeing the big picture in greater context. Its left him at a serious disadvantage when faced with a serial manipulator and liar like Megan. She used his mom against him time after time. The British Royal family system is harsh, but its not as unbearable like they make it out to be, especially today. Its been repeated here many times but Megan either wanted it both ways or was never interested in fitting in the monarchy at best. At worst she wanted to burn it down and have the media/public hail her as hero for it. You can tell parts where she has ghostwritten her retelling of events with fabricated plot lines.
Click to expand...
His only hope now is that he sees the light and he dumps her but I really doubt that will happen. I expect Megan to crash and burn with this American Orchard thing. She like the Royal family's Kamala Harris. Unlikable, fake, forgettable. Maybe she can grift off this fire in LA.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: duckling, madethistocomment, Corpun and 11 others
Less Nasty Old Person said:
Meghan's giving out hug-photo-ops to people who lost everything to the LA fires but the clothes on their backs. Not rven a jar of her jam, just hugs.
Click to expand...
She couldn’t even get one of her minions to drive a few hours to rustle up some bottles of water and granola bars? Disgraceful.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, madethistocomment, Cactuar King and 3 others
Free the Pedos said:
I’m aware, but why does that trump their actual surname?
Click to expand...
Your name in the UK is pretty much whatever you normally go by. You can change your name to whatever you want without any legal process by providing evidence of "name change by usage", and then that is your "actual" surname. Most people don't do this because it's a headache to get places to acknowledge it without a deed poll or solicitor's letter, but if you're a Royal then obviously everyone knows who you are already so you could feasibly change your "actual" name as much as you'd like, and your "official" Royal name is a stage name. As for why, it was probably concerns about being high priority targets or just worrying BFPO would get overwhelmed with fan mail.
Myrtle the Turtle said:
I had the pleasure of reading Spare
Click to expand...
Spare is what convinced me that Meghan was a manipulator, because Harry blithely recounts loads of red flags without realising it (because he fell for it). Up until then I was still a bit on the fence about thinking she was a dim but harmless Hollywood actress who got in over her head, but it's pretty clear she's a manipulator. Not a master manipulator, but good enough and pretty enough to fool Harry. As people often observe in this thread, Diana (for all her faults) would have instantly gotten the measure of her and beaten her off with a stick, but if Diana were still around then she'd have seen to it that Harry had been married off to some nice girl from a minor estate.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Althalus, CloverKitty and 17 others
obsdj said:
Think about this, too: Spare is the version of the story that she agreed to let him tell. The full truth is almost certainly way, way, way worse.
Click to expand...
That's part of why I don't think she ever actually gave birth. Because she read his version of events and decided "Yeah, that's what a birth would be like. Out in two hours after having complications during the process, and he could totally finish all the nitrous in the tank (even though that shit comes out of the wall in a hospital.)"
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: madethistocomment, Bakarina, duckbutter&toejamsandwich and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back