Wyatt: Prince Harry & Meghan’s Sussex titles shouldn’t be removed, it’s a trap!

Last week, British royalist and writer Petronella Wyatt hit the crack pipe and threw down one of the most asinine and overwrought Telegraph pieces I’ve ever read. The point of it was simple – Petronella’s good friend Queen Camilla was mad that Prince Harry did not want Camilla in the room when he met with his father. Instead of reporting that sad tea straight from Camilla, Wyatt spun a cracked-out web of delusion, hatred and poor journalism. Well, guess what that crackhead is up to now? A column about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s titles and whether or not the Sussex titles should be removed. It’s been four years and these people cannot move on. Interestingly enough, Wyatt argues that the Sussex titles should not be removed.

Allowing Harry to come back and perform royal duties would be a bit like giving a terrorist a free run of the Houses of Parliament. He’s dynamite but not of the right kind. Besides, he and William would be the Brothers Grim. Nonetheless, those calling for Harry and Meghan to be stripped of their titles are missing the point and risk a head-on collision with Cape Counterproductive.

Deprived of the Dukedom of Sussex, the couple would become more elevated still, as they would revert to being Prince Harry and Princess Harry, titles that can never be removed, as they are part of the Prince’s inalienable birthright, and a prince always trumps a duke, due in part to the scarcity of such handles.

Their website, which now boasts the name sussex.com, a commercialisation that some say crosses the line, at least in spirit, of their agreement with the Palace, might then read princeandprincessharry.com, which, though a mouthful, would be even worse (as would windsor.com), implying that they are the world’s preeminent royalty, and that Meghan is a bona fide American princess. “Sussex” has the advantage of making them sound like a cricket club.

Still I admire and even sneakingly applaud Harry’s devotion to his wife and her ambitious machinations. There is something almost noble and brave about it, albeit foolhardy.

The allurement that women like Meghan, or indeed any woman, hold out to men is precisely the allurement that rocks hold out to sailors. They are enormously dangerous and hence enormously fascinating. To the average man, even royal ones, they offer the only grand adventure he will ever encounter. Take them away and his existence would be as flat and dull as that of a caterpillar. Even to the unusual man, the adventurous man, the imaginative and romantic man, which Harry is not, they offer the adventure of adventures, like something in H Rider Haggard, and Meghan is certainly “she who must be obeyed”.

[From The Telegraph]

I cut off the last six paragraphs or so, where it was clear that Wyatt hit the pipe halfway through writing the column. She went on to suggest that Meghan was some kind of magical temptress manipulating Harry. We’ve heard it all before, and it seems to be a quite common view among educated white Britons working in the British media: that a Black woman has magical voodoo powers and she can control hapless white men with a snap of her fingers. Even more specifically, they believe Harry is stupid and Meghan is exploiting him and everything around them. None of that is true. Anyway, Harry and Meghan wouldn’t have used their Sussex titles for their website unless they were certain that Charles wouldn’t remove them. Cry harder, crackheads.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

92 Responses to “Wyatt: Prince Harry & Meghan’s Sussex titles shouldn’t be removed, it’s a trap!”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Just Jade says:

    That mental vampire Karen rat wants H&M titles she should go to parliament and start the paperwork. That cow is really getting on people nerves.

    • Caribbean says:

      BTW, I love that ONE LOVE is doing well as I think the RR had an article ready for that as well!

  2. Bettyrose says:

    Sounds like she’s recommending widespread enforcement of burkas to keep these damn temptresses at bay. Might happen in the US. Stay tuned.

    • B says:

      Yes@Bettyrose it was so woman hating! It made me wonder if this article was ghost written by a man similar to when it was discovered that black Brit writers were allowing white writers to use their name to publish racist articles. What woman would write:

      “The allurement that women like Meghan, or indeed any woman, hold out to men is precisely the allurement that rocks hold out to sailors.”

      Does this not sound like something a man would write? Its also the logic used to justify burkas and locking us away.

      • Yvette says:

        @B … Yes, the signature voice and tone of this piece sounds suspiciously like that of Jeremy Clarkson (all writers have their own unique voice) or someone with a similar dislike and disregard of women.

      • CC730 says:

        No, it’s on par with a lot of the female derangers you can find on Reddit, some of it (the ending) seems like a carbon copy of what is said by some practically everyday.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Reminds me of some stupid stuff Agatha Christie used to write when describing some characters in her book. I had hoped this kind of thinking had died out. But no.

    • StarWonderful says:

      Petronella has just given Meghan (and other women) another archetype to examine — the black temptress/siren. Oy! Perhaps she could also examine the archetype of the misogynist woman/patriarchal woman.

    • Bean says:

      How was this woman allowed within an inch of a keyboard?! She absolutely CANNOT write. It’s like she throws a bunch of words together to try and look loads smarter than she actually is. I
      am stunned anyone would hire her.

      • Jensa says:

        Petronella Wyatt’s father was a very high profile journalist and extremely well-connected (close friend of the Queen Mother, for example) – so she’s a nepo kid. Not only that, but she had an affair with Boris Johnson for several years when he was married.
        So this is exactly the sort of article you’d expect someone like her to write.

      • Deering24 says:

        @Jensa–so, she’s ranting on about “temptresses”–but she had an affair with a married man?!?!? Projection, projection, projection. . .

  3. lanne says:

    What kind of publicity machine do you have if the machine members have to be crack addicts in irder to function? This miserable cow can’t bring herself to say that Harry and Meghan have done a great job outside the confines and miseries of the royal family, so she has to resort to the crassest of misogynoir stereotypes to create a narrative. Voodoo queen? Really?

    This age is going to be a gold mine for royal scholars. The Fall of the House of Windsor will generate a lot of graduate theses, books, and documentaries.

    • Christine says:

      Seriously, I’m almost tempted to go back for a graduate degree, because this is fascinating and pathetic, all at the same time.

  4. ML says:

    Did OfMichael and her racist brooch panic dial Petronella? Or was it a different source?

  5. MerlinsMom1018 says:

    What in the actual delusional hell is this screeching harpy going on about?
    Sorry Kaiser. This is beyond crack pipe…sheesh.

  6. Cessily says:

    She is a special breed of vile.

  7. ArtHistorian says:

    The racism really comes out with the reference to H. Rider Haggard and his misogynistic epos She.

    • Midnight@theOasis says:

      This crackhead rolled out every racist trope she could think of. The article drips of jealousy and racism.

      Also, regarding Kaiser’s comment:

      “ be a quite common view among educated white Britons working in the British media: that a Black woman has magical voodoo powers and she can control hapless white men with a snap of her fingers”

      This has roots in slavery when white aristocracy would use and abuse enslaved women (especially on Caribbean plantations) for their amusement.

      • Kingston says:

        …And given that the #RacistRoyalFamilyofBritain are the OGs of anti-black racism in the new world, putridwyatt is merely being true to her racist antecedents.

        NB:
        The more successful H&M become which, juxtaposed with the hilarious bumbling mediocrity of their king-in-awaiting, is the more it allows the world – not just royal watchers & supporters – to see the contrast and point and laugh in incredulity.

        And as this contrast between the productivity of the Sussexes and the bumbling idiocy of the windsors continues, the excrement from the british shitmedia, like putridwyatt, will become even more flailing and extreme.

    • BeanieBean says:

      That was breathtakingly awful!

  8. Kt says:

    None of the Royals would agree to titles being taken away. It opens a whole can of worms that could blow back on any one of them.

    • CC730 says:

      Indeed because then people will talk about Andrew then the rest of the family. But the journalists might tempt dumbdumb Willy into doing it anyway….

  9. Robert Phillips says:

    Even with the titles taken away. They would still be the Sussex’s. Archie and Lili are using that as their last name at school and such. And that is probably what H&M use to sign paperwork. So take the title away. They will still be the Sussex’s. Even Parlament can’t change that.

  10. Lili says:

    Mmm, I thought Piers was going to have a debate about removing their titles since the press is now calling for it. Which means if CAMCAm manages to finagle titles for her off spring they could easily be taken away,

  11. Ahh nothing like a fever dream brought on by massive amounts of whatever she took to bring these unhinged fantastical stories to the light of day. Stay off drugs kids or this is what you become.

  12. Jais says:

    Isn’t Meghan technically Princess Henry right now but she goes by the the duchess of sussex title? Or am I wrong in that?

    • Krista says:

      Yup. They were “elevated” to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on their wedding day.

    • Proud Mary says:

      If they move the Sussex title, she gets to use Princess Henry of Wales on the regular — you know, like that vacuous, racist, Princess Michael of Kent. The fact that “Princess Henry of Wales” gets you really close to “Princess of Wales”, is probably why they have yet to mount a credible campaign against their titles. I’m show a few strands of pearls have been clutched over the thought of “A BLACK PRICESS OF WALES”.

      • Judy says:

        I think that as a son of the Monarch Harry will be The Prince Henry, Meghan The Princess Henry. They are not of Wales now. Princess Michael of Kent is married to a second son, the Dukedom was inherited by his older brother Edward who has a male heir so she will remain Princess Michael of Kent.

  13. equality says:

    So “a prince always trumps a duke, due in part to the scarcity of such handles.”? Don’t they all use the Duke titles because that is considered higher? In the UK alone, there are 18 by birth that use prince/princess and 6 by marriage. Then there is worldwide where some even use Prince titles from defunct monarchies. She is an idiot who should have done more research before typing. Is her problem that Boris and her other affair don’t have lives as “as flat and dull as that of a caterpillar” without her and that they wouldn’t do anything to stay with her?

    • ChattyCath says:

      A Prince is a higher title than an ‘ordinary’ Duke. But a ‘Royal Duke’ invested by the sovereign trumps both of these. Arcane and crazy.

    • Vik says:

      A ducal title is above that of a princely title in the UK.

      All different monarchies (past & present) have different rules about all this, but in the UK a duke is a member of the peerage and a prince is not, therefore the duke trumps the prince. The prince bit is a courtesy only, denoting the link to the monarch.
      The duke is also the highest rank of titles (duke, earl, count, viscount, baron. Don’t know the exact order, but duke is highest and baron I think lowest).

      “Princess Henry of Wales” is only a courtesy just like “Pss Michael of Kent”. The only princely title with meaning is the Wales title. Technically “Duchess of Sussex” is also a courtesy, as Meghan doesn’t have a title of her own (same for Kate, Camilla etc). Diana had a title of her own (“Lady”), because she was the daughter of an earl.

      All the palaver on the Sussex title is just to get clicks/sell papers, because there are set rules for removal and the Sussexes have not committed treason or any other crime. If their titles were to be removed as is, the aristocracy should and would revolt, as that would set a precedent and mean titles can be taken on the whim of a monarch or parliament. Also parliament has more pressing issues to deal with than titles.

      • Vik says:

        Addendum: A “royal duke”, i.e. “HRH Duke/ Earl/ Whatever”, is considered a bit extra, because of the “HRH” style.

      • Lou says:

        Just jumping in to agree with you and also say that in the UK the ranking is Duke (wife is called a duchess), Marquess (wife is a Marchioness), Earl (wife is a Countess), Viscount (wife is a Viscountess) and Baron (wife is a Baroness). There are no Counts in English aristocracy because they use the Saxon word “Earl” instead (it comes from the word ‘yarl’).

      • Vik says:

        @Lou, thank you for the correction, the count one struck me as wrong, but I was too lazy to look up the titles and their hierarchy :’D
        Also the Saxon tidbit is very interesting!! I love some etymology/history like that!

  14. Mads says:

    Good grief, with that utter drivel you can see why Boris Johnson was so enamoured with her – and that’s not a compliment!

  15. JORY says:

    If they can’t strip Harry of his princely title, then why do the derangers keep saying that William will strip Archie and Lilibet of their titles when he becomes king? Why would he strip the innocent children of their titles but not their father? Someone explain to me please.

    • garrity says:

      This has me wondering if the column itself is a candy-coated pill for William. “It’d be WORSE if we stripped the titles, so just shut up about it already, especially in briefings to the press.” The racist hatred of Meghan is just the sugar helping that medicine go down.

      • Christine says:

        I think this is exactly what is happening. More than one person is starting to openly beg Willnot to use his upstairs brain.

  16. Andrea says:

    Some old white hag on a YouTube astrology channel is convinced a spell has been placed on Kate by Meghan, I kid you not.

    • MsIam says:

      If Meghan had that kind of power, you can be sure that Crocmilla and Scamantha would not be standing upright at this time. Along with a mile long list of media harpies. The lunacy of these racist folks is astounding.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      YouTube is so dangerous, it recommends really radical hate after you watch one normal thing.

      I read someone mention she sold her “voodoo” Meghan smear as “let’s all be kind, no hate” while we blame Meghan for Kate and Charles health issues.

    • Snuffles says:

      I’ve seen quite a few YouTube tarot readers pushing that line. That Meghan and Doria are voodoo witches and Oprah is a part of their coven. This is largely white female British psychics. Now, you watch the black tarot readers and they are telling a MUCH different story and they are surprisingly similar. And it’s a dark tale.

    • Jacqueline Thurman says:

      If we had that much power, we would end systemic racism. Kate did herself in by trying to destroy Meg!!!

    • aftershocks says:

      @Jory, people say that because they think Willy can issue a new LP stripping A&L. The truth is, now that A&L legally have and use Prince/ Princess titles as grandchildren of the monarch, it wouldn’t be that simple or easy for Willy to issue a LP stripping them, and only them. There would have to be a logical reason, not just a vindictive one. Doing so would also end up affecting others beyond just A&L. I’m not definitely certain, but I don’t believe issuing a new LP that retroactively removes his brother’s children of their titles, is possible.

  17. Not born yesterday says:

    Ah yes, the ole’ DVM (Devil Vagina Magic) that women are accused of having when they are married to a strong man who asserts his boundaries unconditionally with her support.

    • Couch Potato says:

      Oh, but Harry isn’t strong! According to this lunatic he’s neither unusual, adventurous, imaginative or romantic. But Boris is probably all of that in her crazy head.

  18. Eurydice says:

    Wyatt is just blurting out words without thinking what they mean. So, what exactly was Meghan’s ambition here and how has anything that’s happened in the past 4 years achieved that ambition?

    If it was to live the life of the royals, she had that and she could have sacrificed her mental and physical health to stay there, even though Harry would never be anything more than William’s scapegoat. If it was to marry a rich guy, have a couple of kids and live in a big house, she could have done that any time and a lot easier – with her beauty, intelligence and connections it would have been a snap. She was already an actor and philanthropist, so what ambitious scheme did she have in her head that everyone keeps bleating on about?

    • Deering24 says:

      I keep wondering this too. These folks are probably just using “ambition” as a (supposedly killer) slur. Nothing more terrifying than a WOC who works for what she gets; is great at what she does–and won’t take crap. If she’s not a voodoo priestess or the second coming of She, she must be Lady Macbeth, right? 🙄😡

  19. Freya says:

    I can’t believe this racist Karen is using H Rider Haggard’s symbol of white superiority, the jungle queen, to compare to Meghan. Is she implying Meghan is ruling over White men? I am lost here. How does this person have a column?

    • Bean says:

      Agreed – I am shocked any publication would hire her.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      It’s mind-blowing. Is there no one in the Telegraph newsroom who could flag the racist allusions in her writing?

    • Deering24 says:

      “I can’t believe this racist Karen is using H Rider Haggard’s symbol of white superiority . . .”

      Oh, I can. 🙄 Those fanboys who scream every time a POC is added to Star Wars–or any SF–are some of the worst racists you will ever see. It’s the same kind of “don’t wreck my superiority dreams” head. I would bet good money that outside of sex, nothing gets these people more riled up than their fantasy life “threatened.”

    • Keke Swa says:

      She really is insane. That spew about Meghan—I don’t have words. And what y’all have shared about the voodoo fantasies of British tarot readers is deeply unsettling. I don’t know if I want these glimpses inside the colonialist mind. It’s weird and sad and creepy and you’d feel sorry for them if they weren’t so dangerous and bent on destruction…

      • Keke Swan says:

        … of course that title-stripping idea is VERY POPULAR with derangers so I guess you need some super lurid racist red meat to make that medicine go down… SMH.

  20. Tessa says:

    So demeaning to women and sexist. Personally must watch lots of soap operas and old movie melodrama like the temptress with Greta g a r b o. Gilda with rita Hayworth. And double indemnity with Barbara stanwyck. Personally has no shame

  21. Lau says:

    That last paragraph sounds like it’s been written by an incel.

  22. Kelsey says:

    “The allurement that women like Meghan, or indeed any woman, hold out to men is precisely the allurement that rocks hold out to sailors. They are enormously dangerous and hence enormously fascinating. To the average man, even royal ones, they offer the only grand adventure he will ever encounter. Take them away and his existence would be as flat and dull as that of a caterpillar. Even to the unusual man, the adventurous man, the imaginative and romantic man, which Harry is not, they offer the adventure of adventures, like something in H Rider Haggard, and Meghan is certainly “she who must be obeyed”.”

    That entire paragraph is disgusting misogynistic vile. What in the methhead hell.

    • Eurydice says:

      She’s not all that complimentary to men, either. Really, this piece says nothing about “Meghan, or indeed any woman.” It only says something about Petronella Wyatt as one particular woman.

  23. MsIam says:

    This woman is beyond pathetic. She fits right in with the rest of the UK media cabal. And b*tch please, there is no implying that Meghan is an American princess, she IS an American princess along with her daughter. That is what is really killing them, lol. Just think Crocmilla is queen (consort) but she can’t say her daughter is a princess, lol.

  24. Amy Bee says:

    Petronella’s not only a crackhead and a terrible writer but she’s also a misogynist and racist.

  25. Beverley says:

    I see that anti-Blackness and misogyny are selling tabloids! Personally, I understand the back-handed historical value of these unhinged racist attacks on Meghan. Someday the haters will try to deny their vitriol for the Black Duchess. The world will be committed to evolve past racial hatred, leaving bigots, left-behinds, and derangers holding the bag of evidence. The bigots will scramble to try to re-write history, but we will still have receipts.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      The Telegraph — aka the Torygraph — is not a tabloid. It’s supposed to be the newspaper of the establishment … that’s what makes Petronella’s misogynoir so dangerous.

      • Magdalena says:

        What are you talking about? The telegraph has been a tabloid for YEARS. It’s just in broadsheet format, which fools a lot of people. That’s it. THAT’S what makes their reporting dangerous. Similar to the Times. So many of their reporters used to work for the four main non-broadsheet tabloids, and they took the tabloid style of “reporting” with them. See Tominey, Mansey, etc. It’s incestuous.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        I get your point, Magdalena, but it’s still seen as a paper of record. That’s what makes its racist blather so dangerous.

        People look at The Sun and dismiss it automatically, but they look at the Telegraph and think it’s a reputable publication, even though it’s clearly not.

  26. AlexS says:

    I noticed that the British media treats Meghan like shes this evil succubus and sunk her claws Into him turning him from lovable screwup into an “woke cucked Zombie” the derangment from these people is insane.

  27. Mary Pester says:

    Sussex is their name you pathetic little BCH.
    Did you complain when your idol Billy big head was called Cambridge, are you complaining now when they are called Wales. Did you complain about both brothers being called Wales when in the army. She this is the problem with dumb sycophants, they never fact check or look at the past
    Now saying that a Prince was beguiled by a woman’s charms, was she talking about Charlie and his bed warming brazen shrew camzilla

  28. Scout says:

    Also, if Charles or William remove the Sussex titles, there is nothing left to threaten H and M with. Everything will have been taken away and Harry/Meghan will have nothing to lose.

    So the next books will REALLY blow things up…

  29. paintybox says:

    Omg, she’s tripping. When you make it a fairy tale (Meghan is a dangerous mermaid, Harry is under an enchanted spell 😂) it’s a fairy tale – unless you’re talking to small tots or drunk old royalist Brits.

  30. BeanieBean says:

    A woman’s allure is dangerous to men??? WTH??

  31. Mooney says:

    That last paragraph damn 😒

    Okay I have a question.
    Since Prince Archie and princess Lili Diana are Prince and princess, will their children too get the same title? I mean I know they’d be in the line of succession but the titles? And also do they presently have HRH like their parents? Will that change if wails becomes king?

    • Mary Pester says:

      @MOONEY, no lovey they won’t have H. R. H because their not working Royals and Charlie along with William would stop it. If they had H. R. H it would cause a melt down of the British rags because security for them would become a Palace problem when they were in the UK, as it bloody well should be. Plus they are altering a lot of the so called “Royal rules”., and no, Archie and lillibet will not be able to pass their titles on

    • tamsin says:

      When Charles is gone, William’s family will be the main line, and as William’s children have children, the Sussexes will be much further down the line, like the current placement of Charles’s siblings. Archie will inherit Harry’s title but his sons will take on his secondary titles. Princess Lili can be princess her whole life, her children would not inherit any title from her. Who knows about the state of the British monarchy by then, though.

      I was absolutely amazed to hear one of my friends say that she doesn’t think much of Harry because he is being led by the nose by Meghan and, criticized them for their desire for privacy while taking a hundred million from netflicks. The smear campaign is effective.

      • Keke Swan says:

        That’s strange, Tamsin. I get the feeling from watching them that Harry’s life has completely consumed Meghan’s life. There’s this giant target on her back because of him and the media and Derangers will never let her be free. Is love enough to compensate for all she’s lost by choosing him? I don’t know … I really don’t. In fact I sometimes wonder if that’s why he holds on so hard in public because he on some level fears she might come to her senses and scamper away.

    • tamsin says:

      When Charles is gone, William’s family will be the main line, and as William’s children have children, the Sussexes will be much further down the line, like the current placement of Charles’s siblings. Archie will inherit Harry’s title but his sons will take on his secondary titles. Princess Lili can be princess her whole life, her children would not inherit any title from her. Who knows about the state of the British monarchy by then, though.

      I was absolutely amazed to hear one of my friends say that she doesn’t think much of Harry because he is being led by the nose by Meghan and, criticized them for their desire for privacy while taking a hundred million from Netflix. The smear campaign is effective. I was shocked at how strong the resentment and contempt were.

  32. Saucy&Sassy says:

    I wonder who is behind this or if this is all on the author.

    I always enjoy the fact when the bm shows the world how racist they are. This article seems to hit a lot of the ‘ists’ out there.

    Well, it’s obvious to the world that the UK doesn’t want Meghan in ‘their’ country. This simply proudly displays sexism and racism in order to increase the hate and vitriol again Meghan. I don’t know why they think they can split up Harry & Meghan , but may I suggest they up their meds?

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      It’s like for the past decade or so the UK, particularly England, has been going through some kind of collective psychotic break, with Brexit and the Harry and Meghan hate campaign being high on the list of symptoms. I just feel sorry for all the sane and reasonable people who are being held hostage by maniacs.

  33. Katya says:

    I am so sick of all this tripping of titles stuff and nonsense. Four years and counting.

    Charles can’t strip a royal Dukedom … nor will Billy be able to when he ascends. Only Parliament can do that and for enemies of the United Kingdom. It’s only ever been done for what appeared to be treason during WWI when 3 royals basically went back to Germany (Austria). Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale and Duke of Albany have been vacant Dukedoms for over a hundred years as a result.

  34. AC says:

    These people still do not get it. Americans and many other people in the world don’t give a f$&@ck about royal titles and their archaic institution that can be pretty much obsoleted, as what else do they do but cut ribbons. They can all be gone one day and Who’s going to miss them : hard core royalists(who are most likely in their golden years ) and the BM.
    Last year(and estimated this year) France and Italy actually beat the UK in economic growth and they did it without Royalty.
    People love HM because they are HM. Not because of any titles but because they are caring people with real personalities who are passionate about their charities and causes.

  35. Deering24 says:

    “The allurement that women like Meghan, or indeed any woman, hold out to men is precisely the allurement that rocks hold out to sailors. They are enormously dangerous and hence enormously fascinating.”

    Jesus. _This_ horrendous twit… 🤮😡So, she’s racist as hell, seriously self-hating and sees other women as competition?

  36. Chelsea says:

    Ugh I hate that I agree with Wyatt on anything but i made the same argument about the titles in the post about Harry’s citizenship yesterday. Harry is still the Duke of Sussex because the firm WANTS him to be. If the Firm didnt he would’ve given up use of it when he gave up use of his HRH; his grandmother gave him that dukedom and asked him to keep it when he offered to give it up during Sussexit and because of his love for her he won’t give it up unless asked to.

    The remaining royals don’t want Harry to give up his dukedom because he’d still be Prince Henry and thus Meghan would be Princess Henry and they do NOT want that. That’s why their only hope is that H&M divorce and he remarries and they’ve been trying in vain to make that happen for years now and cry everytime they are reminded that unlike most men in his family Harry actually loves his wife and is willing to put her and their children first.

    • Chelsea says:

      A quick note on my own comment since i ran out of minutes to update it: there is a difference between using and having when it comes to titles. Harry stilll has his HRH — he just agreed to stop using it as a part of the Sandringam agreement. He’s said multiple times, including in the Harry and Meghan doc, that he also offered to stop using the Sussex titles at the time but that ended up not being a part of the agreement.

  37. phlyfiremama says:

    So it’s “agreement with the palace” and no longer just QE2, is it?! Hmmm

  38. Melly Mel says:

    This article is dripping in racism. Any moment in which you start talking about Meghan’s control over Harry, her allure, her ability to con a white man–even a prince–it is racism. And they swear their hatred, distrust, etc. of Meghan has nothing to do with her race. But if Meghan was fully white, almost every article would be how Harry was too sensitive and not willing to do his duty.

    When in part, that is somewhat the truth. Harry wasn’t willing to play the media game at the cost of his wife. Because he had already paid the cost of his mother. He’d. paid it and these same tabloids promised they wouldn’t be terrible again to a woman just becasue she had married into royalty.

    The most telling thing about both the racism and misogyny of the RF and BM, is that they would welcome Harry happily back into the fold. And he’s been the one to call them to task again and again. Meghan said her peace twice. Harry, has gone on a whole spree, yet they would take HIM back. Not Meghan. That should tell you everything.

  39. Keke Swan says:

    I guess I can’t let this go… I think those recent photos of the duchess are what provoked these extremely gendered attacks from female columnists. The appearance in Jamaica had them absolutely seething about the perfection of her skin—those old hags were trying to imply she’d had work done when it’s absolutely obvious that Meghan is simply a beautiful woman of color entering her prime. That had only just died down when the Canada photos came out—and they were gobsmackingly gorgeous… something about that wintry sun reflecting off snow put a nimbus of light around her that almost made you think of Renaissance madonnas. I think it drives them absolutely batshit that the millions of column inches of hate darts they’ve sent at her seemingly can do nothing to diminish her. She floats above their ugliness and it absolutely maddens them.