Prince Harry and the Royal Soap Opera

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
31,815
Apparently Prince Harry Windsor, otherwise known as the Duke of Sussex has decided he's not happy with the press, with being a royal, with the attention, with the criticism of his wife etc etc etc. So how come he and Meghan Markle otherwise known as the Duchess of Sussex don't just ride off into the sunset with their millions and live happily ever after.


Why go half measures. If you're having such a hard life doing practically nothing, and wanting to do even less, while complaining about it, why not just sod off (to use modern day language). He's got 20 Million from Diana, 4 million from his Great Grandmother, Merkle's got 4 million. You gotta laugh at the message that they are now going to seek to be "financially independent" starting with 30 million of their own. Most of it unearned. Piers Morgan has been scathing

 


michael-mcivor

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
3,707
A lot to do with lady Di and the way she was killed-

This break-up will lead to serious accusations from Harry about the conduct of the Windsor family- that carry-on with the Andrew Royal was enough to say enough is enough-

With Charles about to climb on to the Game of Thrones with his lover he will need more than dragons to fight the Harry fire-
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,551
Twitter
No
Free Harry.... free will

It's a joke, a pun, obvs, to see how much they can wind people up, and how much they can get away with. After centuries of experimenting with wars and religions, they know that that most of us plebs are Aisy Wound Up.


 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
17,018
Im guessing her plan is to get the kid out of the UK to make a future custody battle go in her favour, I doubt they will still be married in 5 years.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
31,652
Im guessing her plan is to get the kid out of the UK to make a future custody battle go in her favour, I doubt they will still be married in 5 years.
Well it's nice to know we won't ever hear you at least complaining that UK courts are too favourable to women in divorce cases, if she has to leave the country in order to ensure that.

Personally I think she has already left, but not because of fears about custody. But yeah IMO she's putting Harry on the spot by going back to Mum until he does what she wants.

I feel some sympathy for them, the UK media must be a horror to deal with, but at the same time, they are an entitled pair. Like all the royals really. If the British want to keep paying their home renovations, well more fool them.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,593
Every time there is a news story about the Royals I reflect on the great the virtues of a democratic Republic, and how happy I am to be a citizen and not a subject.
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
10,194
REXIT...

This nonsense reminds me so much of Brexit its unbelievable ... Harry & Meggy have basically thrown a strop and want to be half in and half out .. Like the Brits in Brexit, they want to have all the benefits (of the royal family) but dont want to have to follow the rules (i.e. do the job)..

So personally I might have had some admiration for them had they pulled out completely but not this stroppy half in half out sh1te ...

and I do so look forward to them becoming self sufficient :rolleyes: aye right ... we'll be paying for the lazy privileged feckers till they meet their maker.
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
10,194
Every time there is a news story about the Royals I reflect on the great the virtues of a democratic Republic, and how happy I am to be a citizen and not a subject.
Yep, the British Cap doffing forelock tugging sycophantic & subservient "long may she reign over us" nonsense has never failed to amaze me ... wtf is wrong with these people .. seriously like wtf :unsure::confused:
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,310
Well it's nice to know we won't ever hear you at least complaining that UK courts are too favourable to women in divorce cases, if she has to leave the country in order to ensure that.

Personally I think she has already left, but not because of fears about custody. But yeah IMO she's putting Harry on the spot by going back to Mum until he does what she wants.

I feel some sympathy for them, the UK media must be a horror to deal with, but at the same time, they are an entitled pair. Like all the royals really. If the British want to keep paying their home renovations, well more fool them.

As an ambitious actress, Markle would have been well aware of the savage tactics of UK media well before she set eyes on Harry, she had after all befriended (temporarily) its most high profile journalist (Piers Morgan, who has never forgiven her), any claim the media hounded her from the UK will be roundly laughed at, and rightly
 
Last edited:

Ilovepie

Active member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
179
Every time there is a news story about the Royals I reflect on the great the virtues of a democratic Republic, and how happy I am to be a citizen and not a subject.
I wouldn't be so sure. there is an entitled class in this country too, and we most definitely pay for them.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
14,979
Well it's nice to know we won't ever hear you at least complaining that UK courts are too favourable to women in divorce cases, if she has to leave the country in order to ensure that.

[...]

It's probably more to do with the fact the the UK courts would be less than enthusiastic about granting custody of a royal sprog to an American chav (of either sex).
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
31,652
Ah, so not because "poor men" then? That makes a change. :)

FWIW a (female) relative of mine is divorced from a US citizen, I don't think there was ever any question of the father not getting shared custody, the only problem was how to organise it without disrupting the child's life unduly. I'm not sure if it was UK (NI) or southern (Dublin) courts but I don't think Meghan would lose out other than that. There's no way the courts would make up a law depriving a mother of her child just because he was royal. 400 years ago, sure. But not now. And he's nowhere in the line of succession any more. They couldnt possibly justify it.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,551
Twitter
No

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
17,656
You don't have to be a Royal watcher to know this was always likely to end in tears.

She seemed to be enamored with the idea of been a real life princess , seemingly a fantasy and obsession of hers from a young age. But the fantasy never matches the reality. I am sure she loved all the trappings of a Royal wedding and all the hoo-ha that goes with that.

But the Royal life was never going to match the fantasy , she was already rich and famous before she joined the firm so already had a glamorous life , but before joining the Royals her life was her own to do what she wanted.

But been a Royal means you no longer own your own time , you become a possession of the Royal family and all the duties involved , I suspect it is a very pampered but ultimately horrible and unfulfilling life of endless social engagements , dinner parties and tours.

Not surprised she wants out and I suspect it comes as no surprise to Harry's big brother who reputedly tried to convince the younger lad not to marry her , thus causing a rift between them.

When all dies down I suspect they will be much happier out of there but the thorny issue of finances will have to be sorted , can't expect the UK taxpayer to keep funding their lifestyle , security etc.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
8,074
But the Royal life was never going to match the fantasy , she was already rich and famous before she joined the firm so already had a glamorous life , but before joining the Royals her life was her own to do what she wanted.

But been a Royal means you no longer own your own time , you become a possession of the Royal family and all the duties involved , I suspect it is a very pampered but ultimately horrible and unfulfilling life of endless social engagements , dinner parties and tours.

Not surprised she wants out and I suspect it comes as no surprise to Harry's big brother who reputedly tried to convince the younger lad not to marry her , thus causing a rift between them.

When all dies down I suspect they will be much happier out of there but the thorny issue of finances will have to be sorted , can't expect the UK taxpayer to keep funding their lifestyle , security etc.
Where do I sign up?
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,593
I wouldn't be so sure. there is an entitled class in this country too, and we most definitely pay for them.
There is truth in what you say of course, but I think it is fair to say that there are more opportunities in a Republic to climb (and descend?) the social ladder. Leo Varadkar may be a doctor's son, but could he have become PM in the UK? And our Chief Justice was the first member of his family to go to university. There is no Oxbridge clique in the Civil Service. Notwithstanding the fact that private schooling gives advantages, entrance into the professions is on merit.

Every society has an elite, but in a democratic republic you have a better chance of joining that elite on the basis of your own ability and tenacity.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
14,979
Ah, so not because "poor men" then? That makes a change. :)
You're itching to get onto this point so I'll oblige you.

Because family cases are heard in camera the system is quite opaque so we have to rely on anecdotal evidence to inform us and that doesn't paint a very good picture of what happens to men in the family courts.

The default position appears to be that the wife/mother has all the rights and the husband/father has all the responsibilities.

The woman will almost invariably get legal aid but fathers are on their own (or worse, in the clutches of a McKenzie friend). Unsurprisingly then, the wife will almost always get custody of the children and will be allowed to remain in the house.

She will be deemed to have contributed 50% of community assets but simultaneously deemed incapable of earning a living after the divorce so the husband will have to maintain her for the rest of her life.

If he's granted access to the kids there will be no consequences for her if she denies him that access. She may leave the jurisdiction, taking his children with her and he won't be able to prevent it. He will however, continue to be liable to maintain her.

On top of that there's the matter of false allegations of domestic or child abuse. When these are made by the woman to bolster her position the man is put in the appalling position of attempting to prove that he's not a thug or a paedophile.

As in rape cases, there are no consequences for women who make false allegations so there's nothing to lose by giving it a go.

While the motivation behind holding family cases in camera may have been noble theer's no doubting that the lack of scrutiny has allowed the system to become rotten to the core and deeply damaging to men and children.

FWIW a (female) relative of mine is divorced from a US citizen, I don't think there was ever any question of the father not getting shared custody, the only problem was how to organise it without disrupting the child's life unduly. I'm not sure if it was UK (NI) or southern (Dublin) courts but I don't think Meghan would lose out other than that. There's no way the courts would make up a law depriving a mother of her child just because he was royal. 400 years ago, sure. But not now. And he's nowhere in the line of succession any more. They couldnt possibly justify it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that your relative isn't a duchess.

The UK courts aren't inconvenienced by a written constitution. They have a great deal more latitude than say our courts to do what they might have to to please the powerful.

The prospect of junior being transported to the colonies and 'educated' there and perhaps producing an autobiography (My daddy da dook?) is not one that the upper echelons of British society would relish.

They'd have no problem finding that the best interests of the child would be served by remaining in the father's custody and country.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top