Shits going down with the Royals

[G650 14421]

19 hours ago, Lat22 said:

Bunch of "The Crown" watching MFers up in here.

Guilty.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

Your pint is absolutely correct. This is a weaponized attack on her. There lots of mud being thrown, but it’s not just simply because she’s a woman or part black, it’s because she’s a commoner. 

They came after her hard, much like they did Diana in the 80s and instead of being miserable and plugging on she got her husband to leave the monarchy. Taken on it’s face it doesn’t seem that important but it an incredible shift of power

It's a little bit different. Charles was first in line for the throne. Harry is a side character with almost no chance of ever being on the throne. He will never rid himself of celebrity, but this may well have been a good choice for him even if he was single.  There aren't very many good examples of male side royalty being worth a shit. Prince Andrew is a pedophile. Edward is awkward. 

[G650 14421]

18 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

There aren't very many good examples of male side royalty being worth a shit.

I dunno, both the last two Georges were pretty damn solid imo.

[The Dog 44770]

[The Dog 44770]

DP

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Welp, if you haven’t heard a Canadian paparazzo took Kate’s photo with her kid and she launched a lawsuit against them. The reality of their choice to leave Britain hasn’t seemed to sink in yet

 

So, farewell then, UK media law – and welcome to life in the land of the free. But will Meghan and Harry lead their best lives, legally speaking, across the pond?

If they settle in Canada, yes. But if the rumours are true, with a move to Los Angeles apparently on the cards after a spell amid the snowmobiles, it ain’t necessarily so. Unfortunately for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, they will find that US law affords them little protection.

Take US copyright law, a major part of the royals' legal action against the Mail on Sunday. Here copyright is well-developed with the traditional media defence to a claim – fair dealing – posing a relatively high bar. Editors and journalists have a strong working knowledge of copyright so that, if they make use of another's work, they will have a defence. But in the US, 'fair use' is the fair dealing equivalent – and it gives the media a lot more leeway.

Why? Because it dovetails with the First Amendment, a tenet of the US constitution so fundamental it trumps even the right to bear arms. The First Amendment has created a landscape where you can say what you want, with little or no sanction. It has no less an emblem than President Trump himself and is enshrined in case law, as Caroline Kean, head of litigation with Wiggin, explains:

'The leading case is the 1964 decision in New York Times v Sullivan. Its effect is that if claimants in libel actions are public figures they have to prove that statements they’re complaining about were made with ‘actual malice’. The defendant must either have known that the statement was false or have acted with a reckless disregard as to whether it was true or not. This is a high burden of proof, and, in contrast to the UK, makes it very difficult for famous people to win libel actions.'

What of privacy law? The UK media knows all too well the cost of infringing someone's privacy, thanks to the Cliff Richard case in 2018. But again the First Amendment influences life in the US, in that public figures have a very limited expectation of privacy. Even US data protection has a light touch, tending more to voluntary compliance than the sophisticated legislation adopted across Europe thanks to the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation.

In Canada, the Sussexes will feel that the law is on their side. Its legal system is broadly similar to the UK’s, and, in 1995, Canada’s Supreme Court rejected the US requirement of ‘actual malice’ in Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto. So in Canada, public figures can easily sue for libel – and damages can be high: Mr Hill won more than $1.5m.

Few would insist on the primacy of freedom of expression, when that freedom results in photographs of a mother out for a walk with a child who is not yet one, and has been secured by photographers who reportedly felt it necessary to hide in bushes. If the matter were tested, the Canadian and UK courts would likely agree: Meghan’s privacy was infringed. But in the US, different standards apply. The Sussexes might do well to bear them in mind when choosing their permanent home – and what price fond thoughts of good old Blighty?

Here, a longstanding unwritten agreement not to use paparazzi shots between the UK media and Buckingham Palace has meant the couple have largely been left alone. But even in Canada, a jurisdiction so similar to ours, that agreement would appear to be up for grabs. The Vancouver Island snapper is adamant that Meghan smiled at him and didn’t object when he brandished his camera; in this, he follows a long line of paps, whose habitual defence is ‘the celeb knew I was there and smiled at me’. Perhaps, if they wish to avoid more of this ignoble refrain, Harry and Meghan might consider initiating peace talks with Fleet Street rather than continuing the legal battles – and making a home of Frogmore Cottage after all.

 

[kevwun 16269]

On 1/11/2020 at 1:53 PM, Doc Reeves said:

 

Technically none of them are. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal

Different royal families.  The Plantagets, who he was part of, lost the crown in 1485 when he had a sword stuck through his head at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

Edited January 24, 2020 by kevwun

[G650 14421]

54 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Plantagets

*Plantagenet

[TwiceHorn 31982]

2 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

Welp, if you haven’t heard a Canadian paparazzo took Kate’s photo with her kid and she launched a lawsuit against them. The reality of their choice to leave Britain hasn’t seemed to sink in yet

 

So, farewell then, UK media law – and welcome to life in the land of the free. But will Meghan and Harry lead their best lives, legally speaking, across the pond?

If they settle in Canada, yes. But if the rumours are true, with a move to Los Angeles apparently on the cards after a spell amid the snowmobiles, it ain’t necessarily so. Unfortunately for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, they will find that US law affords them little protection.

Take US copyright law, a major part of the royals' legal action against the Mail on Sunday. Here copyright is well-developed with the traditional media defence to a claim – fair dealing – posing a relatively high bar. Editors and journalists have a strong working knowledge of copyright so that, if they make use of another's work, they will have a defence. But in the US, 'fair use' is the fair dealing equivalent – and it gives the media a lot more leeway.

Why? Because it dovetails with the First Amendment, a tenet of the US constitution so fundamental it trumps even the right to bear arms. The First Amendment has created a landscape where you can say what you want, with little or no sanction. It has no less an emblem than President Trump himself and is enshrined in case law, as Caroline Kean, head of litigation with Wiggin, explains:

'The leading case is the 1964 decision in New York Times v Sullivan. Its effect is that if claimants in libel actions are public figures they have to prove that statements they’re complaining about were made with ‘actual malice’. The defendant must either have known that the statement was false or have acted with a reckless disregard as to whether it was true or not. This is a high burden of proof, and, in contrast to the UK, makes it very difficult for famous people to win libel actions.'

What of privacy law? The UK media knows all too well the cost of infringing someone's privacy, thanks to the Cliff Richard case in 2018. But again the First Amendment influences life in the US, in that public figures have a very limited expectation of privacy. Even US data protection has a light touch, tending more to voluntary compliance than the sophisticated legislation adopted across Europe thanks to the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation.

In Canada, the Sussexes will feel that the law is on their side. Its legal system is broadly similar to the UK’s, and, in 1995, Canada’s Supreme Court rejected the US requirement of ‘actual malice’ in Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto. So in Canada, public figures can easily sue for libel – and damages can be high: Mr Hill won more than $1.5m.

Few would insist on the primacy of freedom of expression, when that freedom results in photographs of a mother out for a walk with a child who is not yet one, and has been secured by photographers who reportedly felt it necessary to hide in bushes. If the matter were tested, the Canadian and UK courts would likely agree: Meghan’s privacy was infringed. But in the US, different standards apply. The Sussexes might do well to bear them in mind when choosing their permanent home – and what price fond thoughts of good old Blighty?

Here, a longstanding unwritten agreement not to use paparazzi shots between the UK media and Buckingham Palace has meant the couple have largely been left alone. But even in Canada, a jurisdiction so similar to ours, that agreement would appear to be up for grabs. The Vancouver Island snapper is adamant that Meghan smiled at him and didn’t object when he brandished his camera; in this, he follows a long line of paps, whose habitual defence is ‘the celeb knew I was there and smiled at me’. Perhaps, if they wish to avoid more of this ignoble refrain, Harry and Meghan might consider initiating peace talks with Fleet Street rather than continuing the legal battles – and making a home of Frogmore Cottage after all.

 

This is a good point.  And, I think Harry's getting kind of suckered on this deal.  He was an involuntary attention horse by virtue of being the prince. That scrutiny, while relentless, is tempered by British libel law and various "accomodations," as outlined above.

I'm not sure he's up to being a voluntary attention horse the way she is.  And both of them may be underestimating the scrutiny they'll get.

[Brothahorn 10096]

The only English I respect


Fuck the Royals

[G650 14421]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I think Harry's getting kind of suckered on this deal. 

You don't say.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

No wai...

 

It’s a case of poor timing for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as court papers filed by Associated Newspapers yesterday allege that Meghan asked her close friend Jessica Mulroney to influence the tone of a newspaper article based on an interview with her former business advisor, Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne. It comes after the couple wrote on their Sussex Royal website that they would only be working with select journalists from ‘credible’ organisations in the future, rather than adhering to the Royal Rota system of royal correspondents.

The papers form the basis of the publishing house’s defence against the royal couple, after they pursued legal action against the Mail on Sunday late last year for its publication of a private letter from Meghan to her father, Thomas Markle, after their wedding in May 2018. The couple are suing the paper on the basis that these were private correspondence that served no public interest, and posed breach of privacy, copyright and data protection.

 

Now Associated Newspapers are claiming that the Duchess was ‘well versed in the art of attempting to manipulate what was written about her’, releasing documents that show her confidante, stylist and close friend Jessica Mulroney attempting to change the tone of a piece commissioned by the Mail on Sunday.

The papers state that the Duchess 'caused or permitted a close friend to seek to influence what is published about her in the media'. This came after Kate Mansey, the writer, contacted Meghan’s press secretary Jason Knauff about the contents of the interview with Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne. Following this, it says, ‘“It is to be inferred that on the same date the Claimant [Meghan Markle] passed this message to Jessica Mulroney with a request that she [Ms Mulroney] intervene to try to ensure a more favourable article was published, because on April 7 2018 Ms Mulroney wrote to Ms Nelthorpe-Cowne putting pressure on her to withdraw or change statements she made.”’

Following this, Mr Knauff was informed of Ms Mulroney's actions, and reportedly told the Mail on Sunday that he would ensure ‘this does not happen again’.

The documents also allege that Meghan shared the contents of her private letter to her father with People magazine via her friends, prior to the Mail on Sunday publishing them. The paper’s defence lawyers have asked for ‘disclosure’ of all of Meghan’s communications that show her intervening with the media, permitting friends to influence what was published about her.

[G650 14421]

Lol.

[Loco 3754]

In other Royal news...

 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

oh yeah, prince Andrew might be in some unsavory shit...

 

Since Prince Andrew's cataclysmic Newsnightinterview, when he was lambasted for failing to show remorse for Epstein’s alleged victims, there has been heat bubbling underfoot. The world has sought answers and in a statement released after the interview, the Duke of York outlined his intention to step down from public duties and said that he was ‘willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required’.

Only, a new report suggests that he has not been cooperating. US federal prosecutors and the FBI have asked to interview Prince Andrew about Jeffrey Epstein, but he has failed to respond, said Geoffrey Berman, US attorney for the southern district of New York on Monday.

Outside the the mansion in Manhattan formerly owned by Epstein, whose death was ruled a suicide in New York in August last year, Berman spoke out. He said that prosecutors have contacted Prince Andrew’s home but have so far not received a response. ‘To date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation,’ Berman said.

Berman would not discuss the Epstein investigation in detail, but reportedly reiterated that the case did not end with his death. ‘Jeffrey Epstein couldn't have done what he did without the assistance of others, and I can assure you that the investigation is moving forward.' Prince Andrew has always strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Berman made the comments about the case during a joint appearance with members of Safe Horizon, a nonprofit victim services agency, to discuss a new New York law that made it easier for people to sue over childhood sexual abuse.

[GotThatFire 166]

On 1/25/2020 at 4:28 AM, Brothahorn said:

Fuck the Royals

Yup

[Doc Reeves 6434]

So, I thought this was an interesting read, but also a little funny that no one anticipated that others would try and grab their branding before them. It would have been fantastic if a Belarusian porn website was able to license the Sussex ’brand’ befor the Sussexes

 

Who’d be a Sussex?

Quite a few people, it seems. Last week, as the media ramped up speculation about the ‘global’ trademark being sought by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, no fewer than 10 individuals decided to register their own applications to own the Sussex Royal brand. What looks like blatant opportunism begs an important question: as if Harry and Meghan haven’t got enough to contend with, what with paparazzi lurking in woods and the fury of Fleet Street having been scorned, are there yet more hurdles in the way of Brand Sussex? 

To answer this question, let’s rewind to 21 June last year. It was then that the Duke and Duchess applied for two UK trademarks via their foundation: one for 'SUSSEX ROYAL', and one for 'SUSSEX ROYAL THE FOUNDATION OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX'. 

Perhaps it was then that the couple’s 'many months of conversations' about a life less royal, as mentioned in the Queen’s statement of 18 January this year, began. Perhaps, too, a more international hue to where the Sussexes might conduct their nascent business activities can be dated to 31 December 2019 and 1 January 2020 – the dates they filed international trademark applications for the same two marks, opting for Australia, Canada, the US and EU. They may also have filed separate applications in other countries, which have yet to become public, but the countries they have chosen are a strong hint about where Harry and Meghan are likely to spend their time.

The media translated all this into the Sussexes’ bid for a ‘global trademark’ – a misnomer, according to Tom Lingard, an expert intellectual property lawyer with Stevens & Bolton. “There is no such thing as a "global trademark", says Lingard. 'What you can do is use a national trademark (in this case the UK marks) as the basis for an international application via the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). This is a streamlined way to obtain registrations in other countries, but you have to pick which countries you want to be covered.'

Lingard similarly admonishes those who have jumped on the Sussex Royal trademark bandwagon. 'None of the opportunistic applications appear to originate in the UK, probably because UK law specifically protects royal insignia,' he says, adding that he has little doubt Harry and Meghan 'will ultimately be able to prevent all of the later marks being registered.'

Lingard adds: 'The UK Intellectual Property Office might do some of the Sussexes’ brand protection for them by refusing opportunistic applications for “Sussex Royal” without Harry and Meghan having to oppose them. However, they don’t have the same protection anywhere else, so they will have to foot the legal bills themselves.'

Harry and Meghan’s applications will now be considered by the intellectual property offices in Australia, Canada, the US and EU, and could be opposed by anyone who believes they have prior rights in the name. The couple appear to have missed an important deadline, which may not have helped, says Lingard: 'When the UK applications were filed on 21 June 2019, this date became the "priority date" and Harry and Meghan had six months until 21 December 2019 to file their WIPO applications, which effectively backdates them to the priority date. It seems they missed that deadline and, as a result, an applicant, Joel Fogelson, snuck his own US application.'

[tx 3 putt 78456]

Those two dummies need better consulting around them 

[G650 14421]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/can-harry-and-meghan-keep-sussex-royal-after-giving-up-royal-responsibilities/2020/02/21/0686bf12-540c-11ea-80ce-37a8d4266c09_story.html

[Kyle 207]

If there is any doubt Bernie Bros completely infiltrated and destroyed the Shag ... eight pages on the "royals" that are not Lourde or Kate nudes.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:43 PM, G650 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/can-harry-and-meghan-keep-sussex-royal-after-giving-up-royal-responsibilities/2020/02/21/0686bf12-540c-11ea-80ce-37a8d4266c09_story.html

Not so fast, apparently.  No "royal" allowed, which I think makes a kind of intuitive sense.  But they are a bit peevish about it, apparently.

It's interesting, insofar as in a trademark sense, the British royal family has no claim to the word outside of the UK, if even there.

My sense is that continued use of "royal" by the former royals engenders confusion in almost the exact same sense as a trademark.

Plus, I find an insistence on using it to be disingenuous.

[tx 3 putt 78456]

they really messed up this whole deal. huge mistake not discussing this with the family before the interview. they had some horrible people advising them on this 

[DalTxHornFan 3130]

The Queen is greatly saddened.

[Scooter Monzingo 821]

The entire episode with these two looks like amateur hour. 

[Chad Fuck 18086]

The entire episode with these two looks like amateur hour. 

Because it is.

Second rate actress and sixth in line to the thrown strike out on their own! They’re gonna make it after all!

It’s a sitcom plot, but in real life.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Because it is.

Second rate actress and sixth in line to the thrown strike out on their own! They’re gonna make it after all!

It’s a sitcom plot, but in real life.

Which one is Rhoda ?

[Chad Fuck 18086]

Which one is Rhoda ?

No Rhoda. It’s why this reboot sucks.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

No Rhoda. It’s why this reboot sucks.

Somebodies gotta be Rhoda or at least Ted Baxter.

[G650 14421]

39 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

thrown

I lol'd.

[Chad Fuck 18086]

I lol'd.

Sometimes autocorrect works in your favor.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

More on how this is MM decision and Harry’s just along for the ride.

 

Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex posted a bombshell announcement on social media in January that they planned to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and work to become financially independent.” After the shock of those intentions were absorbed by members of the prince’s family, who weren’t notified in advance, the Sussexes’ future plans needed to be ironed out. 

It’s been agreed that the couple will officially stop undertaking any royal duties after March 31. But that seems like the only thing that was agreed upon since there has been a bit of back and forth with Harry’s grandmother that the pair wasn’t expecting. Royal sources have claimed this is because Meghan, not Harry, is running the show. 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle | Andrew Milligan – WPA Pool/Getty Images

Here’s more on what’s being referred to as a “very dangerous game” the duchess is playing and why she feels like she’s being “picked on” by her husband’s family now. 

Meghan is running the show, playing ‘very dangerous game’

From the moment this announcement was made many royal watchers immediately thought it was more about what Meghan wanted than what Harry wanted. And after stating that they would still live part-time in England that possibility became unlikely when the former actress fired her whole royal household staff.

“It seems the final nail has been hammered in the separation of Prince Harry and his family thanks to the dismissals of their 15 staff members from the royal household who have been told they are ‘no longer required,’” U.K.-based broadcaster Neil Sean said via Fox News. “I have been told quite a few staff members had hoped or offered to transfer over to Canada to continue a working relationship [because of] the fact they all loved Prince Harry and working for him.” 

But according to Sean’s sources, Markle is the one who took control of deciding the fate of the staff members.

“Insiders note that it’s Meghan that deals with this side of things and many believe it’s a simple case of her running the show and taking away any responsibility from Harry,” Sean claimed. 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle | Chris Jackson/Getty Images

This goes with what some reports have stated about the former Suits star calling the shots and getting what she wants. But the family she and the duke are splitting from isn’t just any family, so you would think she wouldn’t want to make too many waves. 

“A senior advisor told me, ‘She is playing a very dangerous game as the royal family will only take so much,'” Sean added.

 

How much the royals take

Members of the royal family rarely comment on rifts within and outside the firm, and Meghan is certainly aware of this. She and Harry kept with that protocol of silence when the duchess’ father and half-sister were running to the tabloids or going on talk shows and badmouthing them. 

This had led some to think that Meghan figured she can push for her new life and have everything exactly the way she wants with no public pushback from Harry’s family. However, the queen stopped her granddaugter-in-law from doing whatever she pleases with sanctions. And now there are reports on how Meghan is feeling about that. 

The royal family | Chris Jackson/Getty Images

lThe duchess feels ‘picked on’

A source told the Daily Mail that the former actress feels like she’s being “picked on” with all the sanctions coming from the Palace. That insider claimed that Meghan isn’t happy they can’t use their HRH titles and “doesn’t appreciate the insinuation that she and Harry would use the title for financial gain.” The couple, in turn, released a statement saying that the queen doesn’t own the word “royal,” however, they would not use it after they step down on March 31.

But they reportedly managed to tick Her Majesty off again with that statement.

“She’s so disappointed that her own grandchild would heap so much embarrassment on the monarchy and bring all this unwanted attention on his family at the worst possible time,” another source told Us Weekly. 

It seems that these last few months have really taken a toll on everyone involved and they would like nothing more than to be just be done with the drama. We’ll see if it all ceases on April 1.

[Trey3216 15450]

44 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

More on how this is MM decision and Harry’s just along for the ride.

 

Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex posted a bombshell announcement on social media in January that they planned to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and work to become financially independent.” After the shock of those intentions were absorbed by members of the prince’s family, who weren’t notified in advance, the Sussexes’ future plans needed to be ironed out. 

It’s been agreed that the couple will officially stop undertaking any royal duties after March 31. But that seems like the only thing that was agreed upon since there has been a bit of back and forth with Harry’s grandmother that the pair wasn’t expecting. Royal sources have claimed this is because Meghan, not Harry, is running the show. 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle | Andrew Milligan – WPA Pool/Getty Images

Here’s more on what’s being referred to as a “very dangerous game” the duchess is playing and why she feels like she’s being “picked on” by her husband’s family now. 

Meghan is running the show, playing ‘very dangerous game’

From the moment this announcement was made many royal watchers immediately thought it was more about what Meghan wanted than what Harry wanted. And after stating that they would still live part-time in England that possibility became unlikely when the former actress fired her whole royal household staff.

“It seems the final nail has been hammered in the separation of Prince Harry and his family thanks to the dismissals of their 15 staff members from the royal household who have been told they are ‘no longer required,’” U.K.-based broadcaster Neil Sean said via Fox News. “I have been told quite a few staff members had hoped or offered to transfer over to Canada to continue a working relationship [because of] the fact they all loved Prince Harry and working for him.” 

But according to Sean’s sources, Markle is the one who took control of deciding the fate of the staff members.

“Insiders note that it’s Meghan that deals with this side of things and many believe it’s a simple case of her running the show and taking away any responsibility from Harry,” Sean claimed. 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle | Chris Jackson/Getty Images

This goes with what some reports have stated about the former Suits star calling the shots and getting what she wants. But the family she and the duke are splitting from isn’t just any family, so you would think she wouldn’t want to make too many waves. 

“A senior advisor told me, ‘She is playing a very dangerous game as the royal family will only take so much,'” Sean added.

 

How much the royals take

Members of the royal family rarely comment on rifts within and outside the firm, and Meghan is certainly aware of this. She and Harry kept with that protocol of silence when the duchess’ father and half-sister were running to the tabloids or going on talk shows and badmouthing them. 

This had led some to think that Meghan figured she can push for her new life and have everything exactly the way she wants with no public pushback from Harry’s family. However, the queen stopped her granddaugter-in-law from doing whatever she pleases with sanctions. And now there are reports on how Meghan is feeling about that. 

The royal family | Chris Jackson/Getty Images

lThe duchess feels ‘picked on’

A source told the Daily Mail that the former actress feels like she’s being “picked on” with all the sanctions coming from the Palace. That insider claimed that Meghan isn’t happy they can’t use their HRH titles and “doesn’t appreciate the insinuation that she and Harry would use the title for financial gain.” The couple, in turn, released a statement saying that the queen doesn’t own the word “royal,” however, they would not use it after they step down on March 31.

But they reportedly managed to tick Her Majesty off again with that statement.

“She’s so disappointed that her own grandchild would heap so much embarrassment on the monarchy and bring all this unwanted attention on his family at the worst possible time,” another source told Us Weekly. 

It seems that these last few months have really taken a toll on everyone involved and they would like nothing more than to be just be done with the drama. We’ll see if it all ceases on April 1.

Shocking news. 

[C-Man 27684]

4 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

More on how this is MM decision and Harry’s just along for the ride.

 

Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex posted a bombshell announcement on social media in January that they planned to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and work to become financially independent.” After the shock of those intentions were absorbed by members of the prince’s family, who weren’t notified in advance, the Sussexes’ future plans needed to be ironed out. 

It’s been agreed that the couple will officially stop undertaking any royal duties after March 31. But that seems like the only thing that was agreed upon since there has been a bit of back and forth with Harry’s grandmother that the pair wasn’t expecting. Royal sources have claimed this is because Meghan, not Harry, is running the show. 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle | Andrew Milligan – WPA Pool/Getty Images

Here’s more on what’s being referred to as a “very dangerous game” the duchess is playing and why she feels like she’s being “picked on” by her husband’s family now. 

Meghan is running the show, playing ‘very dangerous game’

From the moment this announcement was made many royal watchers immediately thought it was more about what Meghan wanted than what Harry wanted. And after stating that they would still live part-time in England that possibility became unlikely when the former actress fired her whole royal household staff.

“It seems the final nail has been hammered in the separation of Prince Harry and his family thanks to the dismissals of their 15 staff members from the royal household who have been told they are ‘no longer required,’” U.K.-based broadcaster Neil Sean said via Fox News. “I have been told quite a few staff members had hoped or offered to transfer over to Canada to continue a working relationship [because of] the fact they all loved Prince Harry and working for him.” 

But according to Sean’s sources, Markle is the one who took control of deciding the fate of the staff members.

“Insiders note that it’s Meghan that deals with this side of things and many believe it’s a simple case of her running the show and taking away any responsibility from Harry,” Sean claimed. 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle | Chris Jackson/Getty Images

This goes with what some reports have stated about the former Suits star calling the shots and getting what she wants. But the family she and the duke are splitting from isn’t just any family, so you would think she wouldn’t want to make too many waves. 

“A senior advisor told me, ‘She is playing a very dangerous game as the royal family will only take so much,'” Sean added.

 

How much the royals take

Members of the royal family rarely comment on rifts within and outside the firm, and Meghan is certainly aware of this. She and Harry kept with that protocol of silence when the duchess’ father and half-sister were running to the tabloids or going on talk shows and badmouthing them. 

This had led some to think that Meghan figured she can push for her new life and have everything exactly the way she wants with no public pushback from Harry’s family. However, the queen stopped her granddaugter-in-law from doing whatever she pleases with sanctions. And now there are reports on how Meghan is feeling about that. 

The royal family | Chris Jackson/Getty Images

lThe duchess feels ‘picked on’

A source told the Daily Mail that the former actress feels like she’s being “picked on” with all the sanctions coming from the Palace. That insider claimed that Meghan isn’t happy they can’t use their HRH titles and “doesn’t appreciate the insinuation that she and Harry would use the title for financial gain.” The couple, in turn, released a statement saying that the queen doesn’t own the word “royal,” however, they would not use it after they step down on March 31.

But they reportedly managed to tick Her Majesty off again with that statement.

“She’s so disappointed that her own grandchild would heap so much embarrassment on the monarchy and bring all this unwanted attention on his family at the worst possible time,” another source told Us Weekly. 

It seems that these last few months have really taken a toll on everyone involved and they would like nothing more than to be just be done with the drama. We’ll see if it all ceases on April 1.

Undefeated.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

4 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

That insider claimed that Meghan isn’t happy they can’t use their HRH titles and “doesn’t appreciate the insinuation that she and Harry would use the title for financial gain.”

Lol wut?

I want to be able to call myself Duchess without having to do Duchess stuff, except the be rich and glamorous part.

Edited March 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[irishtexan 11692]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lol wut?

I want to be able to call myself Duchess without having to do Duchess stuff, except the be rich and glamorous part.

What the fuck do any of them do? What is Duchess stuff? Attending tea parties and waving at crowds? Fuck the whole lot of em.

[smuggs 9394]

Quote

The couple, in turn, released a statement saying that the queen doesn’t own the word “royal,” however, they would not use it after they step down on March 31.

Lol, yeah these ticky-tack official statements really give the impression that these two are eager to leave the royal media circus behind. 

 

[Armybrat 41305]

As if they didn’t know that a vast media circus has swarmed the royal family - including the extended parasites - since the Queen’s uncle’s affair with the Simpson slut?

[HouTex 1912]

6 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

As if they didn’t know that a vast media circus has swarmed the royal family - including the extended parasites - since the Queen’s uncle’s affair with the Simpson slut?

Wallis Simpson had to have a secret weapon beyond the obvious.

[alincoln 2390]

Probably a bad idea for Harold to marry a Kardashian

[TwiceHorn 31982]

18 hours ago, smuggs said:

Lol, yeah these ticky-tack official statements really give the impression that these two are eager to leave the royal media circus behind. 

 

What's interesting, though, is that they clearly want a media circus, just on their own terms.

As I think pointed out above, American defamation law is going to be a lot less favorable to them than British.

They clearly want their cake and to eat it too.  I feel it's going to become a poopcake.

[Armybrat 41305]

She wants a media circus to make $$$$$$$$$.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

20 hours ago, C-Man said:

Undefeated.

Princess Dianna might like a word with you at the next seance.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Wallis Simpson had to have a secret weapon beyond the obvious.

I'm betting it was a penis.  That twat probably loved getting pegged by her while she was wearing an SS officers uniform (SEE:  Nurse Ratchet).

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

19 hours ago, irishtexan said:

What the fuck do any of them do? What is Duchess stuff? Attending tea parties and waving at crowds? Fuck the whole lot of em.

A lot of yer username checks out.

[HouTex 1912]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm betting it was a penis.  That twat probably loved getting pegged by her while she was wearing an SS officers uniform (SEE:  Nurse Ratchet).

He was the most eligible bachelor in the world and by historical accounts he was very experienced with the ladies.  He could have had any woman he wanted.  Yet he not only chose her, he gave up everything for her.  They ended in the Bahamas . . . before air conditioning.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22239]

We went to the Bahamas to be close to the U.S. because Hitler told him he would make him King of America after we lost the war

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

13 minutes ago, HouTex said:

He was the most eligible bachelor in the world and by historical accounts he was very experienced with the ladies.  He could have had any woman he wanted.  Yet he not only chose her, he gave up everything for her.  They ended in the Bahamas . . . before air conditioning.

Yeah, being a bit over the top with the whole SS uniform, and pegging thing.  He did give it up, and I've always had a bit of admiration for that whole love over power thing, but he was also a Nazi sympathizer to some degree I believe, so there's that.   It ended well for England in that instance.

[HouTex 1912]

Although we can't really be sure about it now, in the several histories that I've read, including the ones written by my avatar and Churchill's biographers, the conclusion is that the Duke was not a Nazi.  Like Lord Halifax, who was no Nazi, he thought Great Briton would lose the war and wanted to cut a deal if at all possible.  Of course, that view was against the official view of His Majesty's Government (i.e. Churchill).  So he was shipped off.  Charles Lindbergh was of a similar mindset and he wasn't a Nazi either.  And in the late 30's and the early days of WWII, none of those men knew just how evil Hitler and his henchmen were.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Although we can't really be sure about it now, in the several histories that I've read, including the ones written by my avatar and Churchill's biographers, the conclusion is that the Duke was not a Nazi.  Like Lord Halifax, who was no Nazi, he thought Great Briton would lose the war and wanted to cut a deal if at all possible.  Of course, that view was against the official view of His Majesty's Government (i.e. Churchill).  So he was shipped off.  Charles Lindbergh was of a similar mindset and he wasn't a Nazi either.  And in the late 30's and the early days of WWII, none of those men knew just how evil Hitler and his henchmen were.

Thanks, At the very least he was an un interested party in the whole Nazi game plan IMO. They knew the build up was going on by that point I believe. He gets a bit of a pass, because so many Britons (Chamberlain was the postwar child of course) were trying anything to avoid another WWI scenario.  Hard to blame them.

He would have capitulated and sued for peace IMO. That could have been the game changer for WWII.  Lindbergh may not have nee a Hitler pal, but it seems like he was anti semitic.

I do think once the war broke out most people in power knew Hitler was gunning for a lot more than just Poland.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

For anyone who questions the value of monarchy and what it can add to the life of a nation, especially at times of crisis, please watch the Queen's speech last night. Amazing woman who hearkened back to the resolve of the British people during WWII to inspire her people today to fight this virus. What an amazing woman and a shining example of what an institution grounded in history and tradition can give to a nation. So sad that Prince Harry and Meghan have tossed that gift aside for nothing.