Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, will be invited to King Charles III's coronation, a statement from the couple suggests.

They say they have been emailed about the coronation, on 6 May, but will not confirm whether they plan to attend.

It is understood that some prospective guests are being asked to save the date ahead of official invitations that will be sent later.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64854803

As 11th Cousin, 3 times removed from King Charles (mutual descendants  of Alice Wynninge (1483 - 1556) - Wikitree), I may have missed the email asking me to reserve the Coronation date. Ha!

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by wwest5829

Whilst you cannot really believe a word which comes from the mouth of those two, I am sure that they will know, and have known for a while, whether they are expected to attend. If they have been included then they are possibly ( if rumours are to be believed)  holding out for an "apology" or other concessions, all of which will then be made public and spun to make the event about them rather than about the coronation of King Charles III. I am pretty sure that the response is/will be either attend on the same basis as everyone else, in your capacity as Royal Duke and second son of the King, or stay away. As they say here "up to you".

 

If they are invited but don't attend, then they will be irrevocably out!

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by herfiehandbag

As a decendent of an indentured kitchen maid from the 1700's I got mine+1, but I'm waiting  my 'white slave' reparations check to buy a ticket.  No gofundme for me!

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by ignore it

For a laugh listen to Chris Rock Netflix special talk about Meghan.

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by EVENKEEL

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Whilst you cannot really believe a word which comes from the mouth of those two, I am sure that they will know, and have known for a while, whether they are expected to attend. If they have been included then they are possibly ( if rumours are to be believed)  holding out for an "apology" or other concessions, all of which will then be made public and spun to make the event about them rather than about the coronation of King Charles III. I am pretty sure that the response is/will be either attend on the same basis as everyone else, in your capacity as Royal Duke and second son of the King, or stay away. As they say here "up to you".

 

If they are invited but don't attend, then they will be irrevocably out!

With the almost relentless slew of negative stories about them, I am starting to wonder if they are being set up by those with an interest in portraying them as ungrateful, demanding etc. 

 

What better way to shore up support for a rather unappetising king to be, than to cast his wayward son as an unpatriotic, malignant threat to the very concept of Britishness - Harry is, after all, dispensable...

I wouldn't even go after the <deleted> gave my house away.

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I wouldn't even go after the A$$hole gave my house away.

The "house" belongs to the Crown, not to Harry or anyone else.....

The delay in acceptance probably due to the on going discussion of the size and seating arrangements for the Netflix crew.

 

Plus when during the ceremony does Meghan get her crown, before or after Charles.

 

 I feel sorry for Charles but what can you do when your son has lost his marbles? Wait for them to return. They always follow gravity, as any 60s kid who built a marble run in his desk knows. One day Harry will wake up.

Patience, Charles.

 In the meantime, don't invite them. Harry will employ a ghostwriter to pen at least an article, perhaps a book about the event: ' Always the Bridesmaid, never the Bride.' 

The pain of being the spare! 

The freedom, knowing you'll never have to take serious responsibility for anything.

The money, the privileges for nothing but accidental birth.

Oh, how it hurts!

Washing the family's dirty linen in public for money is despicable.

Let him stay in the US and reflect.

 

 

 

 

 

They should seat him and her behind a column, where they can't see, be seen and cameras have no clear view of them. Then they can sit there and merrily pick their nose throughout the proceedings....

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

With the almost relentless slew of negative stories about them, I am starting to wonder if they are being set up by those with an interest in portraying them as ungrateful, demanding etc. 

 

What better way to shore up support for a rather unappetising king to be, than to cast his wayward son as an unpatriotic, malignant threat to the very concept of Britishness - Harry is, after all, dispensable...

Hmm, except that, the vast majority of those negative stories come, literally, from Harry himself.

He is an enthusiastic starter of the many threads which have proved negative.

 

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

The "house" belongs to the Crown, not to Harry or anyone else.....

Yes, what's more the lease, which was given to them by the late Queen, has expired. They have not lived there for two years, and the Crown Estates wish to use the house for other tenants, as perhaps part of a more widespread shuffle around of "Royal housing" within the Windsor estate, which is essentially a "secure compound".

 

When the inevitable happens, the marriage collapses and the Montecito mansion is repossessed ( the mortgage is reported in some circles to be basically unsustainable) I'm sure that somewhere in the estate will be found to put Prince Harry, once he is extracted from the wreckage, with or without children.

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by herfiehandbag

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

I wouldn't even go after the <deleted> gave my house away.

Not "their' house. only leased. Probably for tax reasons othher wise it would be please stay free. 

Just now, VocalNeal said:

Not "their' house. only leased. Probably for tax reasons othher wise it would be please stay free. 

The 'blips' I saw, stated 'gifted' to, so sounds like given to.  But hey, really could care less.  Royal soap opera for the DailyMail/Mirror/Star rags, and royal worshippers.

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

Hmm, except that, the vast majority of those negative stories come, literally, from Harry himself.

He is an enthusiastic starter of the many threads which have proved negative.

 

 

I am not sure I agree with you. Ever since he and Meghan became a couple, the press have been critical. The hypocrisy of the mail and express especially has been highlighted previously, but they plough on relentlessly with their campaign.

 

It's no secret that the royal family have used the press - and been used my the press - to punish those who step out of line. I believe this is another example of it.

16 hours ago, Scott said:

will be invited to King Charles III's coronation, a statement from the couple suggests.

It seems they received an email about the coronation. It seems it wasn't an invitation.

Maybe it's a letter like: Dear son, I thought about inviting you. But then I thought about your wife, and I changed my mind... 

 

That is also an email about the coronation.

Just saying 

Will Harry and Megan be going to the ceremony ?

I cannot wait to find out , when is the next episode out ?

Who gives a flying fok

13 minutes ago, n00dle said:

Who gives a flying fok

I don't

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

With the almost relentless slew of negative stories about them, I am starting to wonder if they are being set up by those with an interest in portraying them as ungrateful, demanding etc. 

 

What better way to shore up support for a rather unappetising king to be, than to cast his wayward son as an unpatriotic, malignant threat to the very concept of Britishness - Harry is, after all, dispensable...

Finally, someone who gets and understands the situation that faced Harry and his mother.  In his book, he lays out well some examples.   Whether the Palace actively leaked stories or not is debatable, but at a minimum, they used Harry's follies to deflect from the bad press of other Royals, such as the anger and distasteful relationship between Camilla and Charles.   

41 minutes ago, still kicking said:

I don't

I am underwhelmed!

2 hours ago, still kicking said:

I don't

ditto

10 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am not sure I agree with you. Ever since he and Meghan became a couple, the press have been critical. The hypocrisy of the mail and express especially has been highlighted previously, but they plough on relentlessly with their campaign.

 

It's no secret that the royal family have used the press - and been used my the press - to punish those who step out of line. I believe this is another example of it.

I must confess that I don't really follow the Mail or the Express. From memory I thought the tabloid press were remarkably supportive of Prince Harry and Meghan at the time of their marriage.

 

I wonder whether their present attitude is reactive - the result of the pairs antics, or proactive - the cause of their antics?

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by herfiehandbag

They're probably busily filming the opening of the invitation, then Meghan crying on the floor (left eye only) for the next Netflix series.

 

Hopefully they stay away. 

 

Chris Rock did a great stand up hitpiece on this pair of Charlatans. Very amusing. Even black Americans have grown tired of the constant merching of imaginary victimhood. 

34 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

I must confess that I don't really follow the Mail or the Express. From memory I thought the tabloid press were remarkably supportive of Prince Harry and Meghan at the time of their marriage.

 

I wonder whether their present attitude is reactive - the result of the pairs antics, or proactive - the cause of their antics?

This article gives an indication of how 'unfairly' Meghan has been treated by the press. Rather than courting such negativity, could it be that the press (and the palace?) are out to punish them?

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by RuamRudy

9 hours ago, Credo said:

Finally, someone who gets and understands the situation that faced Harry and his mother.  In his book, he lays out well some examples.   Whether the Palace actively leaked stories or not is debatable, but at a minimum, they used Harry's follies to deflect from the bad press of other Royals, such as the anger and distasteful relationship between Camilla and Charles.   

Here's an interesting article about Mark Holland, a former press secretary of Charles. Smears, leaks and innuendo seems to be standard tools of the trade for such positions.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/24/prince-harry-says-he-was-collateral-damage-in-camillas-pr-ascent

 

He did, for example, start the task of convincing the British public that Camilla was more than just a home wrecking adulteress, and that she was actually someone we should consider our better.

Got to hand it to the PR people who look after the younger Windsor couple's affairs. They do a great job keeping their names in the headlines.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

Got to hand it to the PR people who look after the younger Windsor couple's affairs. They do a great job keeping their names in the headlines.

The internet must cause them concern though - the UK newspapers may have obligingly looked away, but UK social media was abuzz with articles such as this last year:

 

Searches for "pegging" went up 400 percent after a salacious rumor started circulating about Prince William's alleged sexual predilections

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems they received an email about the coronation. It seems it wasn't an invitation.

Maybe it's a letter like: Dear son, I thought about inviting you. But then I thought about your wife, and I changed my mind... 

 

That is also an email about the coronation.

Just saying 

Agree.

 

I expect protocol demands that second in line to the throne receives an invite, but I'll bet it's not expected to be accepted, or at least that she doesn't attend.