Meghan and Harry in Hollywood

[Benn98]

Meghan Markle may have to sponsor Prince Harry to live in US

By Sara Nathan
April 1, 2020 | 1:27pm

Prince Harry and Meghan MarkleGetty Images

Meghan Markle may have to sponsor Prince Harry so he can live and work in the US permanently, a top immigration attorney told Page Six.

As of Tuesday, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are no longer working royals and are officially embarking on their new “financially independent” life in Los Angeles.

While the Queen’s grandson, 35, would have been able to work while the couple was living in Canada for the past few months as it’s part of the Commonwealth, the rules are completely different in the States, a top New York immigration attorney said.

Harry has three options to get a green card — he can either sponsor himself in the extraordinary ability category — or Markle, 38, can sponsor him as a U.S. citizen or a U.S. entity can sponsor him.

He would get a temporary work and travel permit after an initial approval like any regular applicant, the process to get a green card can currently take more than a year. After three years on a green card, Harry would be eligible to become a U.S. citizen. However, this means he would have to renounce his royal title as sixth in line to the throne, so that would be highly unlikely, the attorney said.

After their move to LA late last month, Harry could either be on a B1/B2 visa, which is a regular tourist visa, or possibly an A1 diplomatic visa, which are for government officials and diplomats. He can’t work on either of these visas, other than in a government or diplomatic capacity on an A1 visa.

However, following President Trump’s sour tweet this weekend where he declared he would refuse to pay for their multi-million security bill, an A1 may not last too long. Harry could also be on or apply for an O-1 visa should he have potential contracts here or as someone with extraordinary ability.

The attorney said: “I would probably have Harry and Meghan’s nonprofit org sponsor him based on his history of high profile philanthropy and public works and activism. If the org is not established in the US they would need a US entity of the org as well.

“The org could also sponsor him for permanent residence under the EB1A extraordinary ability category as well, but currently things are faster and easier through spousal sponsorship.”

Page Six

 

[Benn98]

A decisive cutting of ties: Buckingham Palace distances itself from Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview


‘The Duke and Duchess are no longer working members of the Royal Family and therefore any decisions they take with regard to media commitments are matters for them’

HOPE COKE
TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2021

Between Meghan’s privacy claim win against Associated Newspapers and the weekend’s pregnancy announcement, it’s been a big month for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. But they show no sign of slowing down, having now agreed to a revealing interview with Oprah Winfrey.

The news was confirmed on Monday 15 February, after which Buckingham Palace issued a statement clearly distancing the Royal Family from Meghan and Harry’s decision. The Daily Mail’s Royal Editor, Rebecca English, Tweeted: ‘Re Oprah interview, BP say: “The Duke and Duchess are no longer working members of the Royal Family and therefore any decisions they take with regard to media commitments are matters for them. As non working MRF they are under no obligation to inform the Royal Household of such plans.’

Daily Mail reports that the couple’s decision has promoted the royal household to initiate a decisive cutting of ties between the pair and their former royal life. English alleges that Harry and Meghan are set to lose all their remaining royal patronages, as it’s thought the Queen will ask them to give up their links to any organisations passed to them through the Royal Family.

For the Duke, this could mean losing his three remaining honorary military titles and perhaps his patronages with the Rugby Football Union, Rugby Football League and the London Marathon. The Duchess, meanwhile, would have to relinquish her role as patron of the National Theatre, unless she takes on another position with them in an independent capacity. The patronage was bestowed on Meghan in 2019, interpreted as a warm gesture from the Queen, who had previously served in the role for 45 years. It remains unclear whether the couple’s links with the Commonwealth will also be severed, although English cites sources as stating that this appears likely.


Sky News reported that US network CBS will broadcast the interview on 7 March. CBS said in a statement: ‘Winfrey will speak with Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, in a wide-ranging interview, covering everything from stepping into life as a Royal, marriage, motherhood, philanthropic work to how she is handling life under intense public pressure. Later, the two are joined by Prince Harry as they speak about their move to the United States and their future hopes and dreams for their expanding family.’ The 90-minute show, entitled Oprah With Meghan And Harry: A CBS Primetime Special, is the couple’s first major interview post-Megxit, with the Daily Mail alleging that it’s thought the programme has already been recorded,

English quotes a source as describing the interview as ‘one of the most inevitable and, sadly, predictable consequences’ of Megxit, with another adding that it was hoped the appearance would give Harry and Meghan the opportunity to ‘get whatever it is they want to say off their chests and move on’. Others stated that the12-month review period included in the initial terms of the couple’s departure from royal life was intended as a safety net, were they to move abroad and find that they ‘didn’t get a dime in the bank’. Since embarking on their new life in California, however, the couple have pursued a number of independent career ventures; from announcing deals with Netflix and Spotify to investing in a ‘wellness’ latte brand.


One source states that it is commercial projects such as these that have removed the possibility of the couple having ongoing ties to the Royal Family, commenting: ‘You can’t have one of the head of state’s representatives flogging cups of coffee, it’s as simple as that.’ Another added: ‘The interview has clearly come about because there is an understanding [with the Duke and Duchess] that all remaining formal links with organisations will cease to exist.’


ITV News previously speculated that the Duchess was set to sit down with the TV star. It’s thought that Meghan could address questions about her and Prince Harry’s departure from the Royal Family – something neither has given an interview about since Megxit. It’s not yet known whether the Duchess has set out any parameters around the interview and whether she will discuss particulars about the Royal Family. ITV News adds that Meghan may well have stipulated some ‘no go’ areas, but that it’s thought she will discuss her experiences of being in the media spotlight since her relationship with Harry came to light. It’s an issue that continues to loom large in the public consciousness, particularly given Meghan’s victory in her privacy case against the Mail on Sunday last week.

It was thought likely that Meghan would choose Oprah for her first interview since the Duke and Duchess’s move to the US, as someone who she trusts and feels comfortable with. The two women are long-running friends, with the TV host among the guests at Harry and Meghan’s 2018 Royal Wedding. They met through a mutual friend, the CBS breakfast show host Gayle King, and now live close to each other in Santa Barbara. Oprah recently thanked Meghan on Instagram for sending her samples from the latte brand the Duchess has invested in, affectionately referring to her as ‘my neighbour “M”.’

Indeed Oprah is herself sometimes dubbed ‘American royalty’, as a much loved and powerful public figure and the boss of her own cable channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN). Jointly owned by Discovery Inc. and Harpo Studios, the multinational channel bills itself as the ‘first and only network named for, and inspired by, a single iconic leader’. The Duke has also previously agreed to work with Oprah and Apple TV, on a series about mental health. Plus Oprah has prior experience of interviewing royal figures, having spoken to Sarah, Duchess of York for a televised conversation in 2010.

Tatler

 

[Benn98]

I thought Harry and Becky Sharp left the royal family because they didn't want all the public scrutiny and intrigue? But to then go to Hollywood, and sit down for an interview with Oprah? Explain this to me, please.

 

[JohannesL]

She is no Grace of Monaco! Even with all the publicity of marrying a prince and moving to Hollywood, I doubt if she will ever be able to boost her acting career in the future! If it's not that case, I have no clue about what she really want to do in the U.S.

 

[MulletProof]

My ranty take on this as a non-British person is that the British tabloids are f*cking insufferable. Maybe there's just a very thirsty market for it because they seem relentless and will not back down from the most intimate details of any person in the public eye, especially the royal family. This may seem normal for someone British, or maybe even fair trade since they pay for their lifestyle after all, but the level of intrusion seems wildly excessive to me and actually quite... confusing... if the British love their monarchy and take pride on them, why are they okay with this obsessive coverage about their private life done in a manner that is clearly not remotely dignified, the trashier, more humiliating and vulgar, the better?.. or maybe the respect is exclusively reserved to the Queen and the rest are seen as parasites that should be treated accordingly?..

Add to that equation above the oh-so-sanctimonious Buckingham Palace, the strict protocols and tight grip on the lives of those close to the throne as if these people were first monarchy and then citizens of a democratic society and not the other way around.

So I understand why someone would want to escape that, the world does not start or end with the UK, there's plenty of world out there .. with less obnoxious media and no "palace" to answer to. It does not necessarily mean they want to escape power and the platform they have secured from a life in the public eye... it has potential and they can continue to do what they actually enjoy doing (activism... apparently?) without having to respond to some archaic institution or being criticized just for sitting or breathing in a certain way.

I don't know.. to me they're just.. a couple in their 30s, done with the micro-drama of their UK life, who just moved to a new country to try to raise a family and are, right now, unable to work in what they have trained (acting and military stuff) so they have to do the second thing they know best (pursue lucrative deals and use the voice and attention they have acquired after years of being in the public eye), it's really not a big deal, they have about 8 years (if lucky) before all attention is snatched by Prince George's good looks and love interests.

Anyway, Oprah has always annoyed me.. but I guess that's really.. the best interviewer out there? Charlie Rose is in my opinion the best interviewer in the US but um yeah they would never recover..

eta: just because it's bothering me lol, they're in Montecito, it's not even close to Hollywood.. like suggesting you're so starved to make it in the London scene just because you moved to... Brighton.

 

[LostInNJ]

My ranty take on this as a non-British person is that the British tabloids are f*cking insufferable. Maybe there's just a very thirsty market for it because they seem relentless and will not back down from the most intimate details of any person in the public eye, especially the royal family. This may seem normal for someone British, or maybe even fair trade since they pay for their lifestyle after all, but the level of intrusion seems wildly excessive to me and actually quite... confusing... if the British love their monarchy and take pride on them, why are they okay with this obsessive coverage about their private life done in a manner that is clearly not remotely dignified, the trashier, more humiliating and vulgar, the better?.. or maybe the respect is exclusively reserved to the Queen and the rest are seen as parasites that should be treated accordingly?..

Add to that equation above the oh-so-sanctimonious Buckingham Palace, the strict protocols and tight grip on the lives of those close to the throne as if these people were first monarchy and then citizens of a democratic society and not the other way around.

So I understand why someone would want to escape that, the world does not start or end with the UK, there's plenty of world out there .. with less obnoxious media and no "palace" to answer to. It does not necessarily mean they want to escape power and the platform they have secured from a life in the public eye... it has potential and they can continue to do what they actually enjoy doing (activism... apparently?) without having to respond to some archaic institution or being criticized just for sitting or breathing in a certain way.

I don't know.. to me they're just.. a couple in their 30s, done with the micro-drama of their UK life, who just moved to a new country to try to raise a family and are, right now, unable to work in what they have trained (acting and military stuff) so they have to do the second thing they know best (pursue lucrative deals and use the voice and attention they have acquired after years of being in the public eye), it's really not a big deal, they have about 8 years (if lucky) before all attention is snatched by Prince George's good looks and love interests.

Pretty much took the words right out of my mouth!

Also speaking as a non British person, I've always found it quite fascinating, to be honest, just how vicious the British tabloids have treated their own. It's another level of cruelty...even reading headlines on things Meghan did vs. the same things Kate did, was shocking to me and it became glaringly obvious they just did not care for her.

For me, you hit the nail on the head about the respect being exclusively reserved for the Queen, especially nowadays. I cannot recall reading anything negative about her, recently anyway. Everyone else does seem to be fair game.

I don't find Harry leaving to be that surprising to be honest. He's always seemed to be a bit rebellious, and he met someone he loves and wasn't being treated properly, by his own family nor by the country he represents, so why stay? Why be miserable the rest of your life? Again, I suppose because I am not British, the news of them defecting didn't shock me the way it may have some Brits, nor did I find it disrespectful.

I found myself chuckling a bit when I would read anonymous sources saying things like, 'You just don't answer back the Queen. It has never been done.' Except they did, and lived to tell about it...so there is that.

 

[Benn98]

I find it unconscionable that all of a sudden everyone's respect for the Queen's is being called into question. What a reach. You have the world's oldest monarch who has dedicated her life to public service, and to the UK. Who at a very early age understood the importance of her platform and had a sense of duty. Forget about keeping her name out of the tabloids, actual public service. That alone is reason enough to be exalted to sainthood. I feel like this is (should?) not necessarily specific to Brits, it's WORLD history. God knows your very own tabloids don't seem to miss a beat, reporting on the most minute of details about the royal family.

People always make it seem as if UK tabloids only have it out for Meghan and Harry, that's simply not true. Everyone's fair game to them, they've even written nasty stories about the Queen in the past. It is only over the last 5 or so years when some sort of code has been established where they basically only report praise about her or nothing at all.
Meghan and Harry's fraught relationship with the tabloids started with the way she got introduced to the public at large. On the cover of a celebrity magazine. A magazine that would never have given her the time of the day had it not been for her association with Harry. If she's such a self-made, independent thinking woman, why co-sign on that, why agree to a magazine cover reducing yourself as merely the girlfriend of a prince? That alone gave trashy rags like The Sun carte blanche to write of her as they wished because she was not only a public figure but a public figure who sent a message that she's happy to put herself right in the middle of the spotlight. How come Harry didn't warn her that such a move would be PR suicide considering the number of scandals he got himself into over the years? How intense media scrutiny was in the UK?

Despite all this, the couple still enjoyed a lot of support from the general public at large and that's important to note because it would be the very public support (and public outrage over the negative press) for them which imo led to tabloids softening their tone. Her style was closely followed and as we know her UK Vogue made record sales in the UK. And then news of her lawsuit against the Daily Mail dropped and all the tabloids went back on the offense.

The way I see it, Meghan's crutch was the fact that she came from a country or a system where celebrities and their PR control their own narratives with an iron fist. Face it, American press is basically gagged when it comes to reportage on celebrities. Because it's Hollywood (and I refer to this as a system, Mulletproof, not a geographical area) and so this arrangement is accepted by the press because it feeds into the capitalistic film industry which indirectly keeps the press alive. All very incestuous. It doesnt work like that in the UK. Unless it's outright lies or if it gets murky like The Mail soliciting her father to share an intimate letter, the press is still entitled to air their opinions, favourable or not.

I actually agree with you lot, but only to a certain extent. If Meghan and Harry want to move elsewhere and pursue activism on their own terms, fine. But why still try and benefit from a system that they claimed terrorised them? They still maintain PR in the UK for instance. PR who as recently as a few days ago, wait for this, lifted their ban on Daily Mail and allowed the rag to use their image for a news purpose. And the Daily Mail in return exposed the fact that the palace was yet again kept in the dark about her pregnancy news. The Daily Mail also made it known that there's still no statement from the Cambridges, further alluding to the rift. If you had to sue a newspaper that overstepped the line countless times, and won that lawsuit, why lift the ban and allow them to write more crap about you?

Honestly, they're really better off in America with all its rose-tinted People and US Weekly exclusives and Oprah interviews where celebrities go to rehabilitate their public image.

 

[FelipeV]

I can't stan this two, all about them screams Virtue Signaling and STAGED: what they dress, how they talk, what they say. I get that's what they had to do has royals but now it seems that he care of their gestures intensified. And I swear, if if hear the word "compassion" out of their mouths I'm gonna puke.

 

[mepps]

These have become insufferable, and it all started out so beautifully.
Unfortunately, now I believe it will all end in tears.
Meghan willingly married into that inbred, racist, imperialistic family, so she should have known what was coming.
The British tabloids treated her terribly, and I totally believe she was sabotaged by "the firm".
Having said that, I also believe she is highly manipulative. That upcoming interview on Sunday, might just finish off Prince Phillip.
Harry is a FOOL, and recklessly burning bridges with the only family he's ever known. Stabbing his father and brother in the back, for some coins.
Someone should tell the Duke and Duchess that their only cachet in Hollywood, are their "titles". Without them, they're just annoying rich people.

 

[Benn98]

I've only seen previews of the much-hyped interview and from that alone, there's a casualness about her body language that tells me they're into this for the fame. Also, invoking Diana's name? Tasteless! I think they will lose a lot of fans and public support that they've enjoyed so far.

Congratulations America, you have a new Wallis Simpson! And Harry won't be able to bounce back from this.

 

[MulletProof]

^ I just can't with this pearl-clutching royalism.. .. I had written a reply to your other post days ago but.. I can't... lol.. Diana is not a saint, she can be mentioned, especially when she also 'defected' and experienced what sounded like a nightmare of a "family".

Meghan is an actress and Harry is a pointless ~famous prince~ who will never be king.. he has no occupation other than being famous, of course they're into that! and they're now going to give their version of whatever seems important to them given how the only version we've heard thus far comes from either the trashy British tabloids or 'sources' in the palace.

I don't know.. this just seems so silly.. they're going to be forgotten in a handful of years. Remember when the US had to endure that redheaded woman married to Epstein's friend? sorry her name really escapes me right now but she was obnoxious as hell, and pathetic enough to even appear on a daily basis on shows like Extra! talking about diet pills or whatever.. always introduced as the 'fun and cool British royal'.. Diana would've probably ended up doing some of these sad gigs had she lived longer and gone through aging. This honestly seems like a recurrent thing in the British royal family.. even that Amelia girl. If you're not in line to anything, you squeeze the hell out of whatever fame you still have.

 

[Benn98]

^Like I said, I don't mind if they don't want to be part of the royal family. Fine. But what's the point of this sensationalist interview? What makes these two different from Fergie is that they've positioned themselves as moral compasses with all the virtue signalling yet are prepared to sit down for a tell-all interview with Oprah that will guarantee tabloid headlines? So they want fame, but why drag down the worlds oldest monarchy with you? It's tacky! I'd respect them more if they did a reality show but that's probably the last resort. At least they won't be riding on the coattails of the royal family.

.....Diana would've probably ended up doing some of these sad gigs had she lived longer and gone through aging. This honestly seems like a recurrent thing in the British royal family...

This is delusional, how dare you!?! LOL. Please, that would never have happened.

Washington Post

 

[MulletProof]

^ there is really no difference with Fergie if you think about it. The end goal is to make their presence known, to prolong their fame, snatch public sympathy before the others do and anchor some kind of business to that, and what is the only way that can be done when literally no one in America can relate to monarchy? read into the times and speak to the public in that hot, trendy language they can't enough of. For Fergie, the late 90s/early 00s called for unapologetic vulgarity, that's what made entertainment more exciting. She hadn't been divorced for one year when she was already sitting down with Oprah, talking about the hell of being a part of the British royal family, but also counting the amount of bathrooms she had in the Palace and showing pictures of that ostentatious life for Americans to be like 'oh wow'. That doesn't seem as cool now, but being woke is, disguising even the most self-serving of your ambitions under the importance of community, racial justice, right from wrong, etc. I don't even think it's a calculated strategy, just wanting to be a part of the narrative so bad and remain relevant in a way that openly and intentionally goes against the Palace's wishes for them.. which is to just vanish into a quiet darkness where your voice is never heard again and you're not a headache anymore, or .. feel their grip and see your reputation tarnished if you refuse (almost like quitting Scientology or a cartel ).


As for Diana, wasn't she giving specific paps her best staged pictures? she was way more into that game than even Fergie and seemed to have quite a capacity for self-destruction. I don't think she would've handled well the lack of attention that was about to come. She probably would've launched a fashion line, published a book about eating disorders, hit all the late night shows in the US, gone out with Mickey Rourke. She was absolutely not signaling at a couple of quiet years in Tibet, away from everything, meditating and trying to craft a holier lifestyle at the time of her death..

 

[Benn98]

^ there is really no difference with Fergie if you think about it. The end goal is to make their presence known, to prolong their fame, snatch public sympathy before the others do and anchor some kind of business to that, and what is the only way that can be done when literally no one in America can relate to monarchy? read into the times and speak to the public in that hot, trendy language they can't enough of. For Fergie, the late 90s/early 00s called for unapologetic vulgarity, that's what made entertainment more exciting. She hadn't been divorced for one year when she was already sitting down with Oprah, talking about the hell of being a part of the British royal family, but also counting the amount of bathrooms she had in the Palace and showing pictures of that ostentatious life for Americans to be like 'oh wow'. That doesn't seem as cool now, but being woke is, disguising even the most self-serving of your ambitions under the importance of community, racial justice, right from wrong, etc. I don't even think it's a calculated strategy, just wanting to be a part of the narrative so bad and remain relevant in a way that openly and intentionally goes against the Palace's wishes for them.. which is to just vanish into a quiet darkness where your voice is never heard again and you're not a headache anymore, or .. feel their grip and see your reputation tarnished if you refuse (almost like quitting Scientology or a cartel ).

Please explain your obsession with Fergie? I find it so random. LOL. How do you even know all this?

Anyway, now there are palace claims of Meghan bullying her staff, mostly young women. It is even being investigated. Cue the influx of whataboutism....

Also, I'm just going to pretend I never read that Diana slander......

 

[MulletProof]

Please explain your obsession with Fergie? I find it so random. LOL. How do you even know all this?

.. cause I'm not kidding when I say she was always on Extra! giving you that hot royal input no one was tuning in for. I grew up watching this junk, it was sandwiched between the local news at 6 and some decent series at 8 pm..

I read some of the bullying allegations. Apparently someone felt very insulted for receiving work emails at 5 am .. didn't know the staff at Kensington Palace was French lol.

But seriously, you don't have to reply. One in four Americans struggles with sleep.. I used to get emails from my boss at 4 am.. cause she couldn't sleep and you might as well.. do something useful at these obscene hours?. I'd read it when I was on my way to work and sort of 'on duty'. Also the only reason you could be annoyed by that is because you heard the notification, opened it and naturally found it stressful.. there's a feature called 'do not disturb'....

 

[mepps]

^Like I said, I don't mind if they don't want to be part of the royal family. Fine. But what's the point of this sensationalist interview? What makes these two different from Fergie is that they've positioned themselves as moral compasses with all the virtue signalling yet are prepared to sit down for a tell-all interview with Oprah that will guarantee tabloid headlines? So they want fame, but why drag down the worlds oldest monarchy with you? It's tacky! I'd respect them more if they did a reality show but that's probably the last resort. At least they won't be riding on the coattails of the royal family.



This is delusional, how dare you!?! LOL. Please, that would never have happened.

Washington Post

Japan is the worlds oldest monarchy.

 

[Benn98]

Japan is the worlds oldest monarchy.

True! The world's oldest living monarch.....

 

[Benn98]

I read some of the bullying allegations. Apparently someone felt very insulted for receiving work emails at 5 am .. didn't know the staff at Kensington Palace was French lol.

But seriously, you don't have to reply. One in four Americans struggles with sleep.. I used to get emails from my boss at 4 am.. cause she couldn't sleep and you might as well.. do something useful at these obscene hours?. I'd read it when I was on my way to work and sort of 'on duty'. Also the only reason you could be annoyed by that is because you heard the notification, opened it and naturally found it stressful.. there's a feature called 'do not disturb'....

LOL. Yes, I think that email claim is a reach. I do it as well every now and then, because I have a super early morning routine that includes meditation, exercise, news, work emails etc (trust me, I need all of this before I can deal with people, lol). But I never expect an immediate response and I'm sure Meghan didn't either when she emailed after hours. Probably she just hoped that her staff would see her email immediately whenever they open the mailbox.

 

[JohannesL]

Lol, this thread is more entertaining than the news itself. Can they just keep the royal family motto "never complain, never explain"? By doing this interview, they really hit a new low this time.

 

[Benn98]

Ugh, just came from UK Twitter.....

Gifer