Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

[Llywela]

1 minute ago, blixie said:

And yet they have been handed the most salacious story in the world re: Andrew and barely touched it, and instead spend countless ink on Megan and her avocado toast and making Kate cry.

Yes, that's exactly the balancing act I'm talking about - scrambling to keep that story from blowing up the way it should! I'm not defending the royals here. I'm saying they don't have as much control over the press as many people seem to think, which is why all this has been so messy. The royals know the press could turn on them at any moment (if you think they have always had good press, you haven't been following closely enough for long enough). That's a big part of why they always tread so carefully. It's why they have agreements to talk to the press, whether they want to or not. They are scrambling to keep the press on their side - and by quietly allowing Meghan to be presented as 'other', by allowing the press to make Meghan into their whipping boy, they have successfully diverted media attention away from the things they don't want it to address too closely. But it is a dangerous game, and they all know it. And has led to this enormous rift in the family, because sides were taken, and they were not the sides that should have been taken.

[Dani]

2 hours ago, suomi said:

Yes. I am aware that he is a prince by birthright but she could take back the Sussex titles. 

I don’t think that she can remove them because they are peerage titles. It requires an Act of Parliament with the approval of the Queen. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Dani

[BrindaWalsh]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

That's how the press works in general, whether it's dealing with royals or politicians or corporations. There's almost always some sort of tradeoff.

I don't understand how Buckingham Palace is still, continually so terrible at a lot of its press handling. The tabloids have been terrible for decades, so it's not as if there hasn't been time to figure things out. I think the press will always have the upper hand, but there's a lot more the Firm could do to manage its side of things. 

My guess is that they hire somebody who places the Royal Family "royalness" (whatever that means) above true strategic communications that includes crisis communications - and therefore their approach hasn't evolved as media has changed.  

If, for example, the BRF has a unspoken policy of not (or very rarely) commenting when dealing with matters like these in the press and another unspoken policy of using backdoor channels to manage the press to the best of their abilities, and those policies were established years ago because  that suited their needs at the time, then there's a problem.  Everything about the media as we know and understand it has changed dramatically in a very short period of time.  The press and public have constant active channels for "information" that were barely developed even 10 years ago that has literally changed everything about how we access and consume our news, let alone interact on a global scale and it seems like Buckingham Palace is struggling to keep up with that when it comes to being responsive.  There are ways to do it without relying on a sacrificial lamb.  

Take, for example, the Queen's statement of "recollections of the conversation vary, we'll deal with it as a family."  Any truly skilled crisis comms person worth their salt would know that you don't take what is ultimately a public accusation of institutional racism against the British Royal Family and boil it down to a family matter and say that publicly.   And the thought or desire for that statement would have been stopped in its tracks before anybody sat in front of a computer to type it out.  And at the same time, the family members who were making public statements and appearances in the immediate aftermath would have been given a very clear set of talking points on how to handle the question - even a good old fashioned "no comment" - rather than be left to ignore the question with a chuckle as you walk out the door (I'm looking at you, Charles, Mr. Future King of England)).  

There are extremely skilled crisis and strategic communications people who are masterful at dealing with this type of stuff and I'm going to guess they are NOT employed by the firm.  

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by BrindaWalsh

[CountryGirl]

7 minutes ago, Dani said:

I don’t think that she can remove them because they are peerage titles. That would require Parliament to intervene. 

You are correct. The Dukedom of Sussex and its subsidiary titles cannot be removed unless by Act of Parliament, which has only been done once before in modern times. 

The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 was used to remove the peerages of enemies of the United Kingdom during the First World War. This included three male-line British Princes and a Viscount.

• His Royal Highness Charles Edward, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow – Grandson of Queen Victoria and the last Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
• His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh – Great-grandson of King George III and Crown Prince of Hanover.
• His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus – Son of the above.
• Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren and Baron of Ballymote – Bore arms against the United Kingdom

But of course, if one believes the tabloids and/or the Internet, you'd think the Queen could do so, but funny thing about both of them. They (gasp!) report untruths all the time.

[Kromm]

28 minutes ago, Llywela said:

that's exactly the balancing act I'm talking about - scrambling to keep that story from blowing up the way it should! I'm not defending the royals here. I'm saying they don't have as much control over the press as many people seem to think, which is why all this has been so messy.

But they do. The point of the earlier poster is that the Firm successfully steers the press towards certain stories and away from others. If pure saliciousness was the model, they'd slam home the coverage of a sexual predator, one of the heirs cheating on his wife, etc.  Instead they focused on someone holding their stomach while pregnant, and eating avocados, because heaven knows that's more serious. 

The press does it because the Firm decides which of them have access and when, to force them in line. 

[CountryGirl]

18 minutes ago, Kromm said:

But they do. The point of the earlier poster is that the Firm successfully steers the press towards certain stories and away from others. If pure saliciousness was the model, they'd slam home the coverage of a sexual predator, one of the heirs cheating on his wife, etc.  Instead they focused on someone holding their stomach while pregnant, and eating avocados, because heaven knows that's more serious. 

The press does it because the Firm decides which of them have access and when, to force them in line. 

The mere fact that there hasn't been nearly the press about Andrew and his known pedophilia (and that's just one example of the slanted reporting) as there has been about Harry/Meghan/Megxit et al should speak volumes about the relationship between the press and the crown.

And of course there have been occasions when the press has seemed to side against the BRF - Diana's death and the aftermath - but that had less to do with the BRF than with them knowing how to keep filling their coffers. There was much public outcry over the lack of response and seeming apathy from the BRF and the tabloids wanted headlines that would keep the public buying and coming back for more so in that case, there was the "Where is Our Queen?," "Where is Our Flag?" etc. which was all brought to a halt when the Queen returned to London and gave her public address and the difference in headlines prior to that address and after is daylight and darkness. Just like they know headlines about Harry and Meghan, any headline and the more salacious the better, will sell far more than "oh, Andrew is a perv" story. 

[DearEvette]

Because we can always use a little humor.  The reveleation from the interview that Archie is being "stripped of his princedom and forced to live in exile" has spawned a few funnies.  So far my faves:

 

 

also

LOL.

[Kromm]

A summary (just four minutes) of what a body language expert saw in that interview:

 

The overall conclusion seemed to be that most of what she did was consistent with her being honest. 

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

I don’t think that she can remove them because they are peerage titles. It requires an Act of Parliament with the approval of the Queen. 

I think these are the personal gift of the sovereign, given at his/her discretion, so s/he can take them away. It would be a very scorched-earth decision, and I don't think the BRF wants to go that far. It's enough that Harry and Meghan don't use the HRH.

The Titles Deprivation Act was for foreign princes who also held British titles. That doesn't apply to Harry and Meghan.

[sadie]

I think Princess Diana would be so sad that her two children have become this estranged. I think the Queen, Charles the turd and the rest of them are just vipers, but Harry and William not speaking is so unbelievably sad to me. Diana is somewhere weeping. 
 

That said, I believe Harry and Meghan’s story, I believe she has been the victim of racism and that they are doing what’s best for their family, I also believe they should now stop talking about it. They’ve moved out and moved  on, they’ve set the record straight and they can now lead whatever life they want for their family. They are young, rich and beautiful- time to live! 
 

Sad that their only extended family now is Meghans mom. 

[Kid]

On 3/7/2021 at 9:35 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

I agree with everything you have written. 

I have only seen the last part of the first hour and the second hour, so far. I was surprised that there was so much discussion around Harry and Meghan now having to pay for their own security. Harry started talking about having security from the UK while in Canada, and started to say something else but Oprah, as she often does in interviews,  cut him off.  I was hoping that he was gong to acknowledge that Canadians paid as well for his and Meghan's security for the 5 months they were here, in the form of 24hr/7 day a week RCMP security. It is not something that we were required to do, as they were not here as working royals. Our PM decided to put this on the taxpayers of Canada, and I can tell you that the majority of Canadians were not happy about it. 

I think the reason that Harry is not happy with his father is that Charles continued to pay for Harry and Meghan while they were in Canada. After they decided not to continue as working royals and return to the UK,  they were understandably cut off.  As Harry said, he inherited money (quite a substantial amount) from his mother, so he should not be expecting his 72 year old father to still be supporting him as he lives his life in the U.S. 

They can't pay for their own security but they can afford a $5000 dress. Priorities, my dear. 🤣🤣

And don't you hate it when someone is in the midst of saying something you want to hear and the interviewer cuts them off?

[CountryGirl]

25 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I think these are the personal gift of the sovereign, given at his/her discretion, so s/he can take them away. It would be a very scorched-earth decision, and I don't think the BRF wants to go that far. It's enough that Harry and Meghan don't use the HRH.

The Titles Deprivation Act was for foreign princes who also held British titles. That doesn't apply to Harry and Meghan.

Those are two separate things. I only mentioned the latter act because that was the only instance in more than a century where the titles were actually removed, but again via an act of Parliament. The bottom line is only an act of Parliament that has also received royal assent can revoke a a peerage, which is what these titles were created from. So regardless of what the queen wanted to do (and agree it would be a very, very bad look for her/the crown), it would have to go through the legislative process (aka Parliament) and only then could the queen give her assent or not. Not the other way around. 

But as this is getting off-topic, I'm going to cease talking about it.

24 minutes ago, sadie said:

I think Princess Diana would be so sad that her two children have become this estranged. I think the Queen, Charles the turd and the rest of them are just vipers, but Harry and William not speaking is so unbelievably sad to me. Diana is somewhere weeping. 
 

That said, I believe Harry and Meghan’s story, I believe she has been the victim of racism and that they are doing what’s best for their family, I also believe they should now stop talking about it. They’ve moved out and moved  on, they’ve set the record straight and they can now lead whatever life they want for their family. They are young, rich and beautiful- time to live! 
 

Sad that their only extended family now is Meghans mom. 

It is sad and I am hoping that at least, someday, the brothers can become more reconciled and that their relationship is not merely "space" as Harry put it. 

I believe them as well and my biggest takeaway from their interview is that when someone says they are suicidal and they no longer wish to be alive, whatever your other feelings about them, BELIEVE THEM.

Believe them and do whatever you can to get them help and keep them in this world. 

[BrindaWalsh]

29 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Because we can always use a little humor.  The reveleation from the interview that Archie is being "stripped of his princedom and forced to live in exile" has spawned a few funnies.  So far my faves:

 

 

also

LOL.

HA!  These are great.

Speaking of Kate, I'm hopeful that she comes out as the unifying/compassionate intermediary here, at least as far as William and Harry go.  For one, Kate and Harry had a close relationship too.  She's at least had a experience somewhat similar to Meghan - an outside coming in.  And quite frankly, she's always struck me as the most emotionally intelligent of the entire crew.  

Quote

I think Princess Diana would be so sad that her two children have become this estranged. I think the Queen, Charles the turd and the rest of them are just vipers, but Harry and William not speaking is so unbelievably sad to me. Diana is somewhere weeping. 

She never ever would have wanted this.  I think what Harry said about his mom having a bit of a crystal ball or anticipating this happening one day was so sad.  

 

[BlackberryJam]

20 minutes ago, sadie said:

I think Princess Diana would be so sad that her two children have become this estranged. I think the Queen, Charles the turd and the rest of them are just vipers, but Harry and William not speaking is so unbelievably sad to me. Diana is somewhere weeping. 

I don't give two craps about how Diana would have felt. She was a terrible parent and if she is off somewhere crying she probably wants William sitting on the other side of the door passing her tissues like he had to do as a teenager. 

My personal opinion on Diana, had she lived, is that she would spend a good part of her time upset that the younger and more beautiful [Game of Thrones Shoutout!] Windsor wives would be stealing her limelight. 

What this interview did was reiterate for me how Harry has idolized his mother, forgetting all her negatives. He's cast Diana as the saint and Charles as the demon. And while Charles is terrible, Diana was never a saint. 

[sadie]

9 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I don't give two craps about how Diana would have felt. She was a terrible parent and if she is off somewhere crying she probably wants William sitting on the other side of the door passing her tissues like he had to do as a teenager. 

My personal opinion on Diana, had she lived, is that she would spend a good part of her time upset that the younger and more beautiful [Game of Thrones Shoutout!] Windsor wives would be stealing her limelight. 

What this interview did was reiterate for me how Harry has idolized his mother, forgetting all her negatives. He's cast Diana as the saint and Charles as the demon. And while Charles is terrible, Diana was never a saint. 

I in no way think she was a saint, but I do think every parent wishes well for their children. I do think Harry’s view of her is somewhat frozen in time at the age he was when she died, so some “rose tinted glasses” thinking is to be expected by him. I think any time someone dies young they tend to be canonized ignoring their flaws. Even if she was a bad parent, these two brothers being estranged is terribly sad to me. 

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, CountryGirl said:

The mere fact that there hasn't been nearly the press about Andrew and his known pedophilia (and that's just one example of the slanted reporting) as there has been about Harry/Meghan/Megxit et al should speak volumes about the relationship between the press and the crown.

The Palace couldn't prevent that the tabloids chose Diana over Charles. Nor could they shield Princess Margaret from paparazzis. The tabloids publish what sells best. 

As for Andrew, I think it's enough that he is a man, white, upper-class, in late middle-age - and evidently he has done something that also other men have done or at least dreamed that they could have done. 

[BlackberryJam]

33 minutes ago, sadie said:

I in no way think she was a saint, but I do think every parent wishes well for their children. I do think Harry’s view of her is somewhat frozen in time at the age he was when she died, so some “rose tinted glasses” thinking is to be expected by him. I think any time someone dies young they tend to be canonized ignoring their flaws. Even if she was a bad parent, these two brothers being estranged is terribly sad to me. 

This is notable because people are just flaying Charles after the interview without any consideration that he may have wanted good things for Harry. Charles likely has a totally warped view of what that might be and he, like Diana did before her death, certainly has put his own wants and needs above what is best for his children.

Whatever is going on with William and Harry is sad because they are the only two who really understand what it was like to be parented by Chuck and Di. They should understand and support each other and it's sad that they apparently don't.

[Umbelina]

I don't know who the woman in the black and white dress is, but I adore her.  I agree with every word, especially the (serious paraphrasing here) sure everyone loves the Queen, but that doesn't bleed over to the rest of the motley crew. 

It really gets going around the 9 minute mark, and the reaction of the "old" people in this, especially Paul Burrell?  Is everything.

Seriously, one word from a royal "changes people's lives?"  Get over yourselves.

 

[Hiyo]

“Megxit”

I prefer Megxile myself.

[CountryGirl]

I prefer neither as that removes all agency from Harry as if he had no say or no part in the decision which they made very clear in the interview it was a joint decision.

[Hiyo]

Yeah but until we get a decent Harry and Meghan portmanteau we’re stuck with these bad puns. Haghan? Merry? Megharry? 

[BlackberryJam]

10 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

“Megxit”

I prefer Megxile myself.

Harrivederci. 

[Umbelina]

Or perhaps a prophetic sounding name for the future of the monarchy, using Harry's first initial.

Hexit.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

I think these are the personal gift of the sovereign, given at his/her discretion, so s/he can take them away. It would be a very scorched-earth decision, and I don't think the BRF wants to go that far. It's enough that Harry and Meghan don't use the HRH.

The Titles Deprivation Act was for foreign princes who also held British titles. That doesn't apply to Harry and Meghan.

That doesn't really matter because Harry was born a Prince, so that title can't be taken from him.

[Kromm]

27 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

especially Paul Burrell

The idiot Butler, milking cash from betraying and exploiting Diana's memory for literally decades now, just needs to go away. 

[Blakeston]

2 hours ago, CountryGirl said:

But since the beginning and especially since the interview, I really am curious why there is such a push to paint her with the villain brush and that she's a lying liar who lies narrative (I'm speaking generally here)?

Is she some sort of perfect saint, worthy of being on a pedestal? Of course not. 

She's human, like the rest of us, and has and will continue to make mistakes, but I really can't see what she has done that is so terrible, except what, "stealing" away Harry from a pretty decidedly terrible family? And you can't steal someone away from someone else. That's not how it works. Or that she was "pushy" and "demanding" for what? Expecting her staff to do their jobs? And if she was guilty of sending off-hour emails, well, then my company should fire me and my peers straightaway. 

But again, none of that explains the vitriol against her. Even if she was the most evil woman who ever eviled, NONE of that excuses the sexist attacks against her and the racist attacks against her and her child. And nothing excuses the BRF for their part in all of that - both by actions (being complicit with the press) and failing to act. Not even to utter one word of support. 

But you add in the fact that she's a woman and a woman of color on top of that and I don't even know why I'm questioning "why."

I think there's a lot working against Meghan.

There are, unfortunately, going to be people who see her as "uppity" because of her race.

Then there are the Brits who see her as an American interloper who stole Harry away from the royals.

Then there are the people on the right who perceive her as a liberal.

And then there are the people who believe whatever they read in the tabloids.

And then there are people who didn't necessarily watch the interview, but are buying into the widely held perception that Meghan and Harry did the interview because they want everyone to feel sorry for them. There are a whole lot of people who are fed up with celebrities and their privilege, particularly royals - and many of them haven't considered that a couple in this specific situation would need a lot of money for security purposes. So they assume that Meghan and Harry were demanding a fortune to spend on tiaras and fur coats.

[Kromm]

33 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

the reaction of the "old" people in this

It's funny, but you watch enough of the British morning shows, you notice they ALL have at least one prune-faced oldster, usually a (white of course) woman, who cackles a lot, roundly dismisses things that disagree with her worldview without even bothering to debate it, and who sourly build arguments around their "feelings" of a situation, and declarative statements about what is and isn't true. 

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, BlackberryJam said:

This is notable because people are just flaying Charles after the interview without any consideration that he may have wanted good things for Harry. Charles likely has a totally warped view of what that might be and he, like Diana did before her death, certainly has put his own wants and needs above what is best for his children.

This is what's bothering me the most about the interview and the reactions to it. Not because I'm in any way fond of Charles - I'm not - but because I think it's important to be objective.

All we know for a fact about Charles from the interview is that he cut Harry and Meghan off financially after they announced their exit from the royal family. And since that announcement included the claim that Harry and Meghan wanted to be financially independent, I don't think Charles is a monster for letting them do exactly that. Harry made it sound like the funding was withdrawn abruptly, but if it happened on or after their exit date, then it should not have been a surprise.

All the other allegations about wanting to change the rules to permanently strip Archie of a title and "concerns" about his skin tone, don't mention Charles by name, so none of us know for sure that it was him. And I don't think it's right to make assumptions, just like Harry and Meghan don't like to have assumptions made about them.

Edited March 10, 2021 by chocolatine

[CountryGirl]

What has upset me most about Charles of late is Harry's statement during that interview that during some of the worst of this crisis, his father, Charles, stopped taking his calls. He was very visibly upset to the point he could barely get the words out.

That's inexcusable. 

[Cocoa Puff]

2 hours ago, Kid said:

They can't pay for their own security but they can afford a $5000 dress. Priorities, my dear. 🤣

They can afford to pay for a security detail NOW but they couldn't previously and $5,000 dress? that dress she wore to the interview is that the dress you're talking about because who's to say that she bought it she could have just used a stylist and they borrowed that dress for the interview and it went back to the store just like they do with the dresses actors and actresses wear to the awards.

[Kid]

Created in error.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Kid

[Kromm]

9 minutes ago, carolinagirl81 said:

They can afford to pay for a security detail NOW but they couldn't previously and $5,000 dress? that dress she wore to the interview is that the dress you're talking about because who's to say that she bought it she could have just used a stylist and they borrowed that dress for the interview and it went back to the store just like they do with the dresses actors and actresses wear to the awards.

Or there's another possibility.  As much as she's mocked, vilified, accused of being a professional victim, hated on, etc, Meghan does have a history of philanthropy.  Someone in her position might buy the dress, then donate it for a charity auction, with an enhanced likely value because she wore it (especially since it was for this interview). 

[meep.meep]

On 3/9/2021 at 12:27 PM, MMEButterfly said:

And not so thinly veiled.  I think Diana would be a lovely middle name for baby girl Sussex. 

Anything but Veronica

23 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

A billionaire who won't even foot the bill for security for his own grandson.  It's heartless.  It's unimaginable.  

J. Paul Getty

The concerns about getting cut off from security for their child is probably not a matter of money.  If you are a HRH, then your security includes access to the intelligence agencies who can evaluate the risk and advise actions to take on a day by day basis.  Once they are cut off, they can hire guards, put up cameras, live behind fences and moats, etc., but they won't have that intelligence, so they will just be waiting for something to happen.  If you have lived with that kind of security all your life (Harry) it must be truly difficult to think that you, your wife, and baby son who is being attacked in the press, will not be receiving it anymore.

[Irlandesa]

Meghan and Harry can accept free clothing now that they've stepped away, can't they?  So I don't think it's really a question about whether or not she could afford a $5000.00 dress; she doesn't need to.

 

 

[Rickster]

19 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

Anything but Veronica

J. Paul Getty

The concerns about getting cut off from security for their child is probably not a matter of money.  If you are a HRH, then your security includes access to the intelligence agencies who can evaluate the risk and advise actions to take on a day by day basis.  Once they are cut off, they can hire guards, put up cameras, live behind fences and moats, etc., but they won't have that intelligence, so they will just be waiting for something to happen.  If you have lived with that kind of security all your life (Harry) it must be truly difficult to think that you, your wife, and baby son who is being attacked in the press, will not be receiving it anymore.

Or at least, not entirely a matter of money. And providing the same level of security to someone living the far side of a continent away would require British Intelligence to develop all sorts of data sources and analysis which is not required to protect family members in the UK. Not easily done.

And not solved by just throwing money at it.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Rickster

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Rickster said:

Or at least, not entirely a matter of money. And providing the same level of security to someone living the far side of a continent away would require British Intelligence to develop all sorts of data sources and analysis which is not required to protect family members in the UK. Not easily done.

Yeah, but they were told Archie would not receive protection long before he was even born, when they were both still working royals, and living in the UK.  Or am I missing something here?

[HelenBaby]

6 hours ago, DkNNy79 said:

Exactly - see Prince Andrew and the Epstein accusations.  He hasn't had the scrutiny in the tabloids that he should've received.

But the family did stop all of his activities related to the BRF and he has definitely kept a low profile since the investigation started. He wasn’t even in any public photos of Beatrice’s wedding. The case hasn’t really been adjudicated yet. Epstein is dead and Maxwell is still in jail. If there are legalities that can stick to Andrew, I don’t think even the Queen can intervene. 

[Quilt Fairy]

The biggest thing I get out of this interview is that Meghan is a beautiful, intelligent, and articulate woman, and Harry is damn lucky to have married her.   I remember feeling sad and a little upset after the engagement was announced and it was mentioned that as a Royal she was going to have to give up her causes (such as women's empowerment), her blog, even her personal Twitter account.  Talk about being silenced. 

[PeterPirate]

2 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

The biggest thing I get out of this interview is that Meghan is a beautiful, intelligent, and articulate woman, and Harry is damn lucky to have married her.   I remember feeling sad and a little upset after the engagement was announced and it was mentioned that as a Royal she was going to have to give up her causes (such as women's empowerment), her blog, even her personal Twitter account.  Talk about being silenced. 

This.  Today I happened upon a YouTube video of Meghan Markle on the Craig Ferguson show from a few years back.  I didn't know she had a degree in International Relations from Northwestern.  She is one smart cookie.    

It's a shame BP could not work out an arrangement to have H&M spend most of their time representing the monarchy in the Commonwealth nations.  I still like this idea:    

On 1/11/2020 at 12:13 PM, PeterPirate said:

Maybe Harry can be invested as the Prince of Canada.  

The hat the Queen wore at Charles' investiture can double as a hockey helmet.

[Kromm]

41 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

It's a shame BP could not work out an arrangement to have H&M spend most of their time representing the monarchy in the Commonwealth nations.  I still like this idea:    

That's exactly part of how things allegedly got beyond the point of repair.  Harry and Meghan charmed people enormously when they traveled as working royals and The Firm, as some have interpreted things, hated that they were outshining the other royals.  The Firm only wanted them to do adequately, not to outshine future Kings and Queens. 

[Cocoa Puff]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

It's a shame BP could not work out an arrangement to have H&M spend most of their time representing the monarchy in the Commonwealth nations. 

That is exactly what H&M wanted to do when they went to Canada. It is a commonwealth country and they'd still be able to lots of "kissing babies" and whatnot for the FRIM while still be apart of it, as they said as much in the interview, But the "true runners" of the Monarchy said you want to be done? Okay no more allowance from daddy, no more security detail/threat reports since you are done. 

[BrindaWalsh]

52 minutes ago, Kromm said:

That's exactly part of how things allegedly got beyond the point of repair.  Harry and Meghan charmed people enormously when they traveled as working royals and The Firm, as some have interpreted things, hated that they were outshining the other royals.  The Firm only wanted them to do adequately, not to outshine future Kings and Queens. 

 

See that assumption on their part seemed odd a bit odd to me in the interview.  Because I don't recall them outshining anyone.  It wasn't like Kate and William suddenly *didn't* shine.  They absolutely did.  

I think they imply that the abrupt turnaround with the press happened after the tour, correct?  And that is when Harry hesitated and said that he just wished they could have seen Meghan as an asset because of how natural they were together on tour, right?  But they were a bit vague about it.

So I can't help but wonder if that was coincidence.  Anti-Meghan sentiment existed early on and built over time, so I part of me wondered if that was their assumptions and not just a matter of timing of the tipping point.  Unless I am not remembering the interview correctly.  

[BookWoman56]

If one ignores the BS excuse of “This is just how things are done in the BRF,” then much of what Meghan described sounds pretty horrific. She married Harry and had to give up her passport, driver’s license, and keys. The excuse is that the people making travel arrangements need her passport, and for security reasons, she shouldn’t be driving herself or driving alone. Then she was told she couldn’t go to lunch with friends because she’d already gotten too much media attention. She is told she has to curtsy to her grandmother-in-law in private settings. 
Let’s look at each restriction on its own merits. First, any halfway competent administrative aide should be able to copy a passport and use the copy for making travel arrangements. Even if the original is somehow needed, the idea that it’s too much trouble to get an admin to go ask Meghan for the passport implies that a paid employee having a minor inconvenience is much more important than an adult woman retaining possession of a vital document. 
Second, why treat Meghan or any other royal as a child and confiscate driver’s license and keys, instead of simply informing them that if they want to drive somewhere, they need to follow the security protocol for the situation? In addition, is this confiscation of keys and driver’s licenses something that applies only to royals under a certain age or only to women? Because there is no way I believe that Charles has to ask permission to use his car keys and DL every time he wants to go somewhere. 
Third, in what universe is it acceptable to tell a grown woman that she’s not allowed to leave her home, for whatever reason she might want to? And to use the excuse that she’s confined to home because the media is paying too much attention to her? Despicable. 
Finally, the idea that anyone should have to curtsy to the queen in private is absolutely ludicrous. It speaks to over-inflated egos and a feeling of superiority to others, based on nothing but a title awarded by bloodline rather than merit. 
All these things taken together paint a very ugly picture of an environment that tried to strip away Meghan’s autonomy and independence, and to position her as subject to absolute control by her in-laws and their employees. In addition, why does it seem like the universal expectation was that Meghan had to adapt 100% to the culture and traditions of the BRF, with zero regard for her own culture other than briefly during the wedding? In a healthy marriage and extended family, both spouses bring in some of their own family traditions and often create new ones, and the extended family recognizes that changes occur, and ditching some traditions that no longer make sense is not the end of the world. The subtext is that only the BRF traditions matter, and nobody who marries into the BRF should be treated as if their own traditions matter. 
In the past, I’ve been pretty indifferent to the BRF but FFS this has to be one of the most toxic families and institutions ever. It’s time to get rid of the British monarchy and the underlying assumption that this family is somehow better and more important than average UK families. 

[Hiyo]

Looks like in the UK, post-interview, the public overall still seems to favor the Queen and the Royal Family over Harry and Meghan, though a good deal of it is split along generational lines, with younger people (especially under 25) being the most in support of them. In the long run, that's a good thing.

Then again, Harry and Meghan are in the US now, where they seem to have loads more support, so it was definitely the right move for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/10/britain-generational-divide-headache-left-meghan-monarchy

https://www.barrons.com/news/meghan-and-harry-row-divides-uk-along-age-lines-poll-01615302326?tesla=y

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/09/snap-poll-post-interview-harry-meghan

https://ew.com/news/50-percent-of-british-people-believe-oprah-interview-hurt-meghan-markle-prince-harry/

[GaT]

Meghan complained to ITV about Piers Morgan's comments

Quote

CNN understands that Meghan's complaint to ITV concerned the impact Morgan's comments could have on others and how it could degrade the seriousness of mental health issues. The complaint did not relate to the personal nature of Morgan's attacks.

 

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, BookWoman56 said:

Finally, the idea that anyone should have to curtsy to the queen in private is absolutely ludicrous. It speaks to over-inflated egos and a feeling of superiority to others, based on nothing but a title awarded by bloodline rather than merit.

I agree with your opinion about curtsying - and not only in private but also in public. Habits change when time, circumstances and values change.

But as the Queen is over 90 years old and other members of the royal family bow and curtsy to her also in private, it was impossible that Meghan would be an exception. Why not take it just as an odd habit that one meets in other countries?

Edited March 11, 2021 by Roseanna
removing a letter

[Crs97]

I am reminded of hearing years ago that Charlene in Monaco had her passport taken, and people were treating it as akin to human trafficking.  Who would have guessed that it was standard operating procedure?

[Blergh]

9 hours ago, Kromm said:

That's exactly part of how things allegedly got beyond the point of repair.  Harry and Meghan charmed people enormously when they traveled as working royals and The Firm, as some have interpreted things, hated that they were outshining the other royals.  The Firm only wanted them to do adequately, not to outshine future Kings and Queens. 

And that was so counterproductive and STUPID on the Firm's part. Especially when one considers that, at this time, personal bonds of individual leaders as well as sentimentality for Her Majesty are currently the ONLY things keeping the Commonwealth intact- and it's anyone guess how long or even IF it can survive her passing. IOW, they should have been relieved and GRATEFUL than the Duchess of Sussex was willing to take the brand abroad instead of being pettily thinking she somehow was 'outshining' them and therefore needed to have the plug pulled.  That was one unpleasant surprise that came out of this interview.

[Kromm]

Here's an example of how in real time (meaning AFTER the Interview and accusations about press treatment being out there) the British Press still can't help but twist, lie, and distort things to make Meghan look bad. 

First, look at this article:  DOESN'T ADD UP Meghan Markle and Prince Harry enjoyed 13 holidays despite saying her passport was taken away

But then reread it and REALLY look at the article. 

First line/thesis of the article: "MEGHAN had at least 13 foreign holidays after being welcomed into the royal fold — despite telling Oprah Winfrey her passport was taken away." 

Their "proof" : "The Sun today reveals she flew off on 13 holidays after starting dating Harry, including trips to New York, Ibiza, Botswana, Italy and Amsterdam." 

In other words, their "proof" that she lied about her passport was taken away after being married was that she had holidays while she was dating Harry. 

This is exactly the kind of passive-aggressive twisting the British Press always pull with her. They count on people accepting the worst implication of the headline, even if the actual facts presented say something different. 

 

[Rickster]

I don’t have the energy to try to track all the dates in that article, but based on the dates, it appears 3 or 4 of the 13 trips quoted were pre marriage if they were married in May 2018.