Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

[blixie]

Quote

William says the family isn’t racist.

This is why I absolutely disagree that William isn't implicated in the "conversations" about Archie's skin color. Or that somehow Kate and Will weren't implicated in the interview and only spoke well of them in the interview. No they did not. Oprah asked about the friendly Wimbeldon photo and Meghan was like yeah no it looks like she's being friendly but it was not what it looked lie. Kate can't open her mouth to say actually I made Meghan cry not the other way around. They are just as TRASH as Charles only I think Will looks worse, because he knows what his mom went through, knows Meghan is suicidal, and says NOTHING, nothing within the structure, nothing outside the structure. At every opportunity he has to support Harry he pulls this shit. The family isn't racist. As Oprah said in interview: HHHMPH.

[txhorns79]

2 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

cut him off financially, 

I mean, Harry is in his mid-30s, and apparently has millions of his own dollars.  That's one particular issue that isn't going to win him much sympathy from me. 

[Kromm]

22 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I mean, Harry is in his mid-30s, and apparently has millions of his own dollars.  That's one particular issue that isn't going to win him much sympathy from me. 

Fair enough. But is the appeal here for sympathy, or as the original poster used that phrase, or to explain why Harry might have felt justified in publicly coming clean about his family? 

Whether or not you believe he should be sympathized with for no longer getting that money, because as you say, he clearly doesn't need it, doesn't the act of him being cut off in of itself explain his attitude sufficiently?  As humans, don't we often get upset by actions taken against us that don't ultimately sink us, but DO humiliate us and hurt our pride? 

He had his nose shoved in it for standing up for his wife. The consequence of being financially cut off may not earn our sympathy, but does that mean the underlying pattern of attacks against him and his wife and child also shouldn't? 

[SherriAnt]

2 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

sounds like you are agreeing that "a lot more to it than she realized" is that she didn't bargain on racism and being told to sit down and shut up where her mental health was concerned. 

I totally believe the racism, not so much the refusal for mental health help. But, again, I don't know the whole truth, it's just my opinion. 

[WinnieWinkle]

31 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I mean, Harry is in his mid-30s, and apparently has millions of his own dollars.  That's one particular issue that isn't going to win him much sympathy from me. 

I can't speak for Harry but for me it's not the loss of the money as money - it's the principle of the thing.  Why was he cut off?  Because Charles felt Harry was a grown man who could support himself?  No. It would seem he was cut off because he wasn't prepared to let his family treat his wife and child shabbily.  It was just one more insulting gesture IMO.

[PepSinger]

As someone wise once said, “Well if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions.”

[chocolatine]

15 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Fair enough. But is the appeal here for sympathy, or as the original poster used that phrase, or to explain why Harry might have felt justified in publicly coming clean about his family?

The Oprah interview was most definitely an appeal for sympathy. The exit from being working senior royals was a strong enough statement on its own and didn't need a follow-up. But it wasn't enough for them just to leave, they also wanted the world to know that they were the wronged party.

10 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I can't speak for Harry but for me it's not the loss of the money as money - it's the principle of the thing.  Why was he cut off?

(1) Because he and Meghan had said publicly that they wanted to be financially independent, and (2) because there's no reason why parents should support children who are over 35 and millionaires in their own right. Most parents, even very wealthy ones, cut off financial support when the children are in their 20s.

[Ms Blue Jay]

5 hours ago, DkNNy79 said:

Yes, she did seem a little more hostile to him at times.  Which surprised me because aren't they working on a project together?

Re:   Oprah

I think she put on this "act" of hostility and antagonism towards Harry because of the conflict of interest.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[WinnieWinkle]

10 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

... because there's no reason why parents should support children who are over 35 and millionaires in their own right. Most parents, even very wealthy ones, cut off financial support when the children are in their 20s.

I'm not sure most very wealthy families actually operate that way but certainly the BRF does not.  But even so if that were the case he would have been cut off much sooner.  He wasn't.  That speaks volumes to me.   But really why he was cut off financially isn't the point I was making earlier.  We know, or can speculate anyway depending on which 'side' we favour on why Harry and Meghan spoke out now - what I am truly curious about is what the BRF actually expected them to do.  If they thought they'd remain quiet they've learned differently.

Edited March 12, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[Ms Blue Jay]

1 hour ago, txhorns79 said:

I mean, Harry is in his mid-30s, and apparently has millions of his own dollars.  That's one particular issue that isn't going to win him much sympathy from me. 

Charles is worth 1.5 billion.  He's never ever ever going to run out of money.  Even if you want to cut off your son, to not provide money to protect your own innocent grandchild is, I'm sorry, clinically insane to me.

 

[PepSinger]

8 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

30 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I can't speak for Harry but for me it's not the loss of the money as money - it's the principle of the thing.  Why was he cut off?

(1) Because he and Meghan had said publicly that they wanted to be financially independent, and (2) because there's no reason why parents should support children who are over 35 and millionaires in their own right. Most parents, even very wealthy ones, cut off financial support when the children are in their 20s.

1) They weren’t cut off because H&M said they wanted to be financially independent.

2) The issue with being “cut off” was that it was abrupt. Charles didn’t cut them off because he thought Harry needed to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. He cut him off because they left. They left because Charles and the rest of the family did nothing to help or protect Meghan while they were senior working royals. Charles helped to create the circumstances which caused them to leave in the first place. It’s not about the literal money as opposed to the circumstances surrounding what happened.

[chocolatine]

11 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Charles helped to create the circumstances which caused them to leave in the first place..

That's pure speculation because neither Harry nor Meghan have named Charles in those allegations. The only thing we know at face value is that a year ago Harry and Meghan announced their exit and said they would be financially independent, and shortly after that they stopped receiving money from Charles. That seems like the logical consequence of their announcement (or else they don't understand what "financially independent" means).

Edited March 12, 2021 by chocolatine

[Ms Blue Jay]

I thought @PepSinger was referring to Charles ruthlessly cheating on Diana and saying he wanted to be Camilla's tampon and all the other shit the Royal Family did which led to tabloids become sickeningly obsessed with every move the Royals made?  As Meghan said, the Royal Family helped feed into this voraciousness of the press, and then to refuse to protect Harry/her/Archie from it felt unfair.

 

[PepSinger]

3 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I thought @PepSinger was referring to Charles ruthlessly cheating on Diana and saying he wanted to be Camilla's tampon and all the other shit the Royal Family did which led to tabloids become sickeningly obsessed with every move the Royals made?  As Meghan said, the Royal Family helped feed into this voraciousness of the press, and then to refuse to protect Harry/her/Archie from it felt unfair.

 

Yes, that’s what I mean. The BRF could have stepped in and helped squash the ridiculous, vitriolic and racist rhetoric regarding Meghan, and they didn’t.

[auntjess]

Just came across this one, a body-language expert's take on the interview.
https://www.thelist.com/349898/what-a-body-language-expert-noticed-in-meghan-markles-oprah-interview/

[chocolatine]

24 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I thought @PepSinger was referring to Charles ruthlessly cheating on Diana and saying he wanted to be Camilla's tampon and all the other shit the Royal Family did which led to tabloids become sickeningly obsessed with every move the Royals made?  As Meghan said, the Royal Family helped feed into this voraciousness of the press, and then to refuse to protect Harry/her/Archie from it felt unfair.

The British press has had a sick obsession with the Royals since long before Charles and Diana. Charles obviously doesn't have any control over the press, or else he would have made sure that the tampon story never saw the light of day - I remember when it came out and it made him the laughingstock of all of Europe.

And either way, what does that have to do with him stopping the gravy train? Are you implying that because Meghan got a rough deal from the press, Charles owes her and Harry monetary reparations?

Edited March 12, 2021 by chocolatine

[PepSinger]

5 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Are you implying that because Meghan got a rough deal from the press, Charles owes her and Harry monetary reparations?

I think he should’ve continued to provide security, and I stand by that.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Charles and the Royal family are in bed with the press.  Harry was implying it.  The press was racist towards his wife and child.  It's kind of like Charles is siding with the press over his own offspring.  How could he not stand up for them and ask the press to back down?  Even if it didn't do anything, it would show solidarity to them. It would be leading by example.  

[Umbelina]

Gosh, those comments on that Daily Mail article are vicious.  

First, it's all "me gain" who said everything, when it was actually Harry that confirmed it happened and upset him.  Followed by a bunch of "anybody would wonder about the child's color, that's NORMAL!"  and "She deliberately misunderstood it!"  (even though Harry was the one to hear those conversations and was upset by them, and the one to tell Meghan about them.)  Harry is left out of all the hate comments by the way.

Then it's all "they were paid!!!!" by Oprah because of "me gain" even though it was made quite clear they received no money for that interview several times.

This much hatred is just so weird to me, and if nothing else, it confirms that getting out of the UK was the only move they had.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Umbelina

[txhorns79]

59 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Charles is worth 1.5 billion.  He's never ever ever going to run out of money.  Even if you want to cut off your son, to not provide money to protect your own innocent grandchild is, I'm sorry, clinically insane to me.

Harry and Megan are functioning adults worth millions of dollars.  I'm not going to sympathize because a supposed billionaire cut off his millionaire son.  I sympathize that Harry and Charles are apparently having a hard time with their relationship, because that is a tough situation, but not because Harry was left to subsist on his own millions.         

[Ms Blue Jay]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

This much hatred is just so weird to me, and if nothing else, it confirms that getting out of the UK was the only move they had.

It's rooted in white supremacy.  There's nothing that they've done that could warrant hate this vicious, as you said.  Being neutral, or dislike, okay, but the vicious hate...... yikes.  

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Harry is left out of all the hate comments by the way.

Yeah!  Gee I wonder!

[Crs97]

Personally I thought the point of mentioning they were cut off financially was to explain why they signed the mega deals with Netflix and the other thing.  They were slammed for that, and I thought they were explaining (with some bitterness) why.

[Ms Blue Jay]

6 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

Harry and Megan are functioning adults worth millions of dollars.  

Well at least one of them was suicidal.  Charles' reaction to this feels vicious and unearned.   Like other people said it's not the literal hand taking of money.  It's also the symbolism of rejection, turning your back, leaving you to fend for yourselves.  Over and over again Meghan kept reiterating the same point.  That the security was taken away.   "Okay fine, if not for me, then what about my son?  Okay fine, if not for me, then what about my husband?"  She was baffled at the protection being removed.  Not the money.  

Edited March 12, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[PeterPirate]

18 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

I think he should’ve continued to provide security, and I stand by that.

I agree.  Security, but nothing else unless H&M perform an official duty.  

 

9 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Charles and the Royal family are in bed with the press.  Harry was implying it.  The press was racist towards his wife and child.  It's kind of like Charles is siding with the press over his own offspring.  How could he not stand up for them and ask the press to back down?  Even if it didn't do anything, it would show solidarity to them. It would be leading by example.  

For that matter, it occurs to me that BP could provide clarity about whether they took Meghan's passport.  Since the article in The Sun is so blatantly misleading, I presume that they indeed took her passport and not willing to admit it now.  

[Lady Whistleup]

Harry comes from a broken home. It's a pattern in broken homes that they eventually equate financial support with love/affection. And it's also a pattern in broken homes that the parent often resents what he or she feels like unreasonable financial demands. But the child thinks he's owed that money because he didn't grow up in a loving, stable, happy home. 

[chocolatine]

4 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Charles and the Royal family are in bed with the press.  Harry was implying it.

Just because Harry was implying it doesn't make it true. We know for a fact that Charles had no power to suppress the many unflattering stories that have been written about him over the decades, so why are people assuming that he had the power to change how the press treated Meghan?

[seasons]

7 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I would giggle if they included "Edith" among their names. Archie and Edith Bunker ... 

You touched about something about Harry that I noticed: when he talked about his decision to leave he brings up his mother as the first reason. I have a feeling he doesn't see Meghan as Meghan, but rather Meghan as a project with which he can conquer his demons. If he saves Meghan from a horrible fate in a Paris tunnel, then he's at peace. But life doesn't work that way. Diana was Diana. Meghan is Meghan. 

That's an unfair burden to Meghan to have to constantly alter her way of life because Harry thinks that one paparazzi shot in a magazine is the same as being chased in a Paris tunnel.

Also did you notice the frostiness between Oprah and Harry? It was weird. Oprah was very at home with Meghan but when Harry joined she seemed to clam up.

I thought I noticed some odd vibes coming from O to both H and M. 

Interesting facial expressions and in general a skeptical vibe. 

Being skeptical is fine and probably necessary for journalists but shouldn't they be able to skillfully hide it from those being interviewed?

Just felt some weirdness coming from her direction.

 

[WinnieWinkle]

14 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

It's rooted in white supremacy.  There's nothing that they've done that could warrant hate this vicious, as you said.  Being neutral, or dislike, okay, but the vicious hate...... yikes.  

Yes,  indifference I totally get, even dislike if you believe that Harry and Meghan are not being sincere, but hatred?  And it's hard to believe that level of hatred is rooted in strong love for the Royal Family.  I just don't see little old ladies all over England posting hateful comments on the Daily Fail as they sip tea from their Golden Jubilee Commemorative tea cups.  I have a good imagination but not that good.  

Edited March 12, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[txhorns79]

10 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

It's also the symbolism of rejection, turning your back, leaving you to fend for yourselves.  Over and over again Meghan kept reiterating the same point.  That the security was taken away.   "Okay fine, if not for me, then what about my son?  Okay fine, if not for me, then what about my husband?"  She was baffled at the protection being removed.  Not the money.

Just to note, Anne's kids don't have taxpayer funded security, neither do Andrew's children, nor Edward's children.  That's what we are talking about here.  British taxpayer funded security.   As far as I know, no non-working Royal has it.

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I think put on this "act" of hostility and antagonism towards Harry because of the conflict of interest.

Oprah is a skilled interviewer.  I didn't read that so much as hostility but putting herself in the role of the average American audience member who would view a man like Harry, who grew up a literal prince in a castle and wonder 'why suddenly now are you realizing this?'  I I think on some level she is smart enough to know that reality hitting you in the face can change your perception so she was giving him the space to explain it, but she also knows that there are some Americans who view his epiphany about his family and his role with some skepticism so she 'spoke in their voice' so to speak.  It is a common interviewing tactic.

I think she was also aware that Americans view Meghan much more sympathetically.  Yeah a lot of Americans are royal watchers, but a whole lot more don't give a fuck about them.  And when you add in race, black Americans specifically, they don't give a fuck about the British royals exponentially more.  So

 

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

The Oprah interview was most definitely an appeal for sympathy. The exit from being working senior royals was a strong enough statement on its own and didn't need a follow-up. But it wasn't enough for them just to leave, they also wanted the world to know that they were the wronged party.

I would say rather, they wanted the world to hear their side.  Over the past two years, the press, 'Royal experts', unnamed palace insiders, her father, her sister... all got a voice and all got to talk about Meghan.  Meghan and Harry never got to say a word on their own behalf.  Fuck that noise.  You can't tell me that if you had to sit there for two, three years and hear story after story after story claiming things about you publicly that you KNOW are lies that you would be content to just not set the record straight if you had the opportunity? 

I actually saw people online tut-tutting about her correcting the lie that she made Kate cry.  Some people said she 'threw Kate under the bus' and 'she should have just been the bigger person.'   I am like.. Bitch please.  Kate not only allowed the press to throw Meghan under the bus, she sat back and let the bus run over her three four times a day on that lie.  I don't blame Meghan nan bit for correcting that shit  In fact when she said it my reaction was more like:

The sad thing is, Kate didn't even have to tell the whole story.  They could have just had some handy "palace insiders" debunk that story with something nicer that preserved Kate and didn't damage Meghan. 

[Dani]

3 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Personally I thought the point of mentioning they were cut off financially was to explain why they signed the mega deals with Netflix and the other thing.  They were slammed for that, and I thought they were explaining (with some bitterness) why.

Me, too. When Harry got cut off, he and Meghan picked themselves up built a company so they didn’t need his families money. Parents don’t owe their adult children anything but it can still be painful when a parent withdraws support. It’s not necessarily logical or even a sign of  entitlement.

Based on what was said, most of their decisions like moving to LA, staying at Tyler Perry’s and the media company was in response to losing their security. All those things were criticized. I saw this as an explanation of how they ended up where they were and how this wasn’t the plan from the beginning. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Dani

[chocolatine]

7 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

You can't tell me that if you had to sit there for two, three years and hear story after story after story claiming things about you publicly that you KNOW are lies that you would be content to just not set the record straight if you had the opportunity? 

I never said that Harry and Meghan shouldn't have done the interview, I just said that it was done with the intention of garnering sympathy. They have to work for a living now, and the lucrative deals will dry up if people don't find them sympathetic.

[Dani]

40 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I actually saw people online tut-tutting about her correcting the lie that she made Kate cry.  Some people said she 'threw Kate under the bus' and 'she should have just been the bigger person.'   I am like.. Bitch please.  Kate not only allowed the press to throw Meghan under the bus, she sat back and let the bus run over her three four times a day on that lie.  I don't blame Meghan nan bit for correcting that shit  In fact when she said it my reaction was more like:

The sad thing is, Kate didn't even have to tell the whole story.  They could have just had some handy "palace insiders" debunk that story with something nicer that preserved Kate and didn't damage Meghan. 

I’m very hesitant to blame Kate for any of this. Meghan had very good things to say about her. She said Kate may have wanted to come forward because she is a good person. That Kate might have been blocked just like the others. It was telling, to me, that she felt Kate could also be silenced. Clearly, Kate is in a more privileged position and is one of the one’s protected but that doesn’t mean she isn’t also controlled by the same people who controlled Meghan. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Dani

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Are you implying that because Meghan got a rough deal from the press, Charles owes her and Harry monetary reparations?

No. Charles should have taken care of it because it had always previously been the understanding between them, using it as a lever to compel certain actions from them was manipulative, underhanded, cold, and unparental, and while Harry did eventually figure out a financial way forward, that was hardly the case at the time. 

[chocolatine]

9 minutes ago, Kromm said:

No. Charles should have taken care of it because it had always previously been the understanding between them 

How do you know what kind of understanding they had? Is that public record? For all we know, the understanding may have been that Charles would only support them while they were working royals.

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

I’m very hesitant to blame Kate for any of this. Meghan had very good things to say about her. She said Kate may have wanted to come forward because she is a good person. That Kate might have been blocked just like the others. It was telling, to me, that she felt Kate could also be silenced. Clearly, Kate is in a more privileged position and is one of the one’s protected but that doesn’t mean she isn’t also controlled by the same people who controlled Meghan. 

My reaction isn't so much about Kate.  It is mostly a reaction to those who think that Meghan was in the wrong for revealing the truth behind the real story.  The injustice of that sort of thinking is hypocritical because most people in the same situation would have jumped at the opportunity to clear their name. 

[Dani]

17 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

My reaction isn't so much about Kate.  It is mostly a reaction to those who think that Meghan was in the wrong for revealing the truth behind the real story.  The injustice of that sort of thinking is hypocritical because most people in the same situation would have jumped at the opportunity to clear their name. 

I agree with you and wasn’t addressing that part. As I said, I am uncomfortable with putting the blame on Kate when Meghan was deliberately trying to stop that narrative. 

I feel like the major flaw in the interview was that Meghan’s attempt to separate the bad acts of the institution from the family was mostly lost. That’s partially because the interview muddled those points but also because the audience equates The Firm with the Royal Family. I’m not giving the royal family members a free pass at all but the problem is much bigger than the 5 or 6 people we first think of and want to hold responsible. 

I suspect we could put a completely new set of people in those visible roles and very little would change. 

[bijoux]

I think this is the poignant remark I've seen regarding people's responses to this interview. 

[Cheezwiz]

4 hours ago, seasons said:

Interesting facial expressions and in general a skeptical vibe. 

Being skeptical is fine and probably necessary for journalists but shouldn't they be able to skillfully hide it from those being interviewed?

I didn't get a skeptical vibe at all. It all felt very softball and rehearsed to me.

I'm sort of indifferent to the whole thing as well as the Royals in general - but let's face it, Oprah has probably been cozying up to the two of them since she got the invite to their wedding hoping for a big "get". It paid off, and she got the get. They're buds, and Oprah made an absolute mint on this. This was not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. 

I believe the substance of everything they said - it followed the same pattern of treatment that was meted out to Diana and other newcomers over the years. The Palace seems to deliberately set people up to fail and fall on their faces. It must be terribly isolating, and would likely take a horrendous toll on even the most self assured person's mental health. So I have empathy for anyone in severe mental distress. I think Meghan thought her TV experience would serve to prepare for scrutiny and press intrusion. I don't think it's possible to prepare for the vitriolic and blatantly racist coverage from the gutter press. Or death threats to your child for that matter.

I don't have the energy to follow up on the claims of the Prince title being rescinded for Archie alone. It sounds like he would be eligible for that title once Charles becomes King, but I dunno.

Charles shouldn't have yanked security so abruptly especially while their location was known . That was just cold. He could have at least ponied up for private security during a transition period until they had arranged their own.

All that being said, I find something bothersome about Meghan. I was completely neutral on her when she married Harry - I thought their ceremony was beautiful, and she seemed like a poised well spoken addition to a very calcified stodgy family. I don't think she deserved any of the treatment she received, but she seems to put forth a lot of partial truths, or statements that have kernels of truth. This just gives ammo to her detractors and is a common behavior that very skilled liars engage in. Harry seems to adore her, so I'm hoping she's a well-meaning person who simply had enough.

 

[Blergh]

5 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Yes,  indifference I totally get, even dislike if you believe that Harry and Meghan are not being sincere, but hatred?  And it's hard to believe that level of hatred is rooted in strong love for the Royal Family.  I just don't see little old ladies all over England posting hateful comments on the Daily Fail as they sip tea from their Golden Jubilee Commemorative tea cups.  I have a good imagination but not that good.  

Having grown up in the US Southeast, I can attest that some of the seemingly 'sweetest' old 'ladies' who one could easily imagine sipping mint juleps on the veranda were VERY capable of uttering some of the most alarmingly paranoid, hateful and bigoted comments about those who were not of their background (often prefacing them with a 'Now I'm NOT prejudiced BUT. ..'). Hence,  I wouldn't put it past that for some those of the same age range, etc. on the other side of the Pond to do the same while sipping on their commemorative tea cups! Not all or most  but  there are some folks DO equate having a love for their institutions going hand-in-hand with a hatred for those 'not their own kind'. 

[Zella]

On the subject of William's comments about the interview, they were spectacularly awful from a PR perspective, but what I found most interesting about it is the fact that it had been nearly a week and he had Harry still hadn't spoken. I have 3 older brothers (2 of whom I only recently reconnected with), and I can't fathom one of them having that bombshell-level of an interview about the family and us not clearing the air almost immediately, even if it was just to have a good old-fashioned screaming match at each over the phone.

I still haven't had time to watch the interview, but that suggests to me that Harry's comments about he and his brother's relationship having space right now was a polite understatement and that is a situation that is not likely to change any time soon. I think Harry may have more hopes of salvaging his relationship with his brother and may be more hurt than angry at William (whereas he seems angrier at Charles), but William's response just doesn't seem like that of someone interested in reconciling. 

3 minutes ago, Blergh said:

(often prefacing them with a 'Now I'm NOT prejudiced BUT. ..').

And ending them with "bless their heart." 😉 

I'm from the South too. I know a lot of delightful little old ladies and also some incredibly hateful ones. I don't think that's limited to one region, and I agree with you in thinking little old English ladies aren't exempt from it either. 

 

[mamadrama]

My 6 degrees of separation: Meghan's rescue dog, Guy, was picked up in the county next door to me and brought to the animal shelter in my county. We run a rescue organization mainly for cats but we also take in dogs on occasion. The dog spent a week at our shelter (which is a kill shelter) before it could be released to us. We kept it for 3 days until transportation could be arranged to the north. 

Once most animals leave us we never find out what happens to them. We had no idea that Meghan adopted him in Canada until an article appeared during the wedding. We heard that an actress had him, but that was the extent of our knowledge. (Also, Guy didn't spend his whole time in Montgomery County. He spent his time next door.) 

 

https://www.wlky.com/article/did-you-know-one-of-prince-harry-and-meghans-dogs-was-rescued-from-a-kentucky-kill-shelter/35771185

[Door County Cherry]

Hey everyone,

We're straying again here. 

While major responses, like from the palace or family, are on topic, this thread is starting to get bogged down with talk about what other random people (not engaging in this thread) think about the interview and how you feel about those opinions. 

Please bring it back to your thoughts on the interview.  

P.S.  Just because the Royals thread is temporarily close doesn't mean you can bring that talk here.  

 

 

 

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, blixie said:

Kate can't open her mouth to say actually I made Meghan cry not the other way around.

Nobody *makes* another person cry. Some person just cry more easily. 

Situations like wedding are stressful and can cause disagreements about trivial things.

The incident shouldn't have published at all.

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

Harry's comments about he and his brother's relationship having space right now was a polite understatement and that is a situation that is not likely to change any time soon. I think Harry may have more hopes of salvaging his relationship with his brother and may be more hurt than angry at William (whereas he seems angrier at Charles), but William's response just doesn't seem like that of someone interested in reconciling.

Robert Lacey says in his book Battle of brothers (which of course was published before the recent happenings) that both Harry and William have learned from their parents' public quarrels to keep private what has passed between them.

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, Hiyo said:

If Diana, an English, white, virgin, and daughter of a peer faced all that, what hope did Meghan have? How could it not be a cautionary tale? I suppose at the time people wanted to believe the fantasy that Harry and Meghan’s union would modernize the RF and possibly begin a new era for the UK as well.

People may change in 20-30 years and other European royals have indeed changed. Instead, Britain's royal house is still as if Britain had an empire.

In addition, the British tabloids are generally vicious, Britain hasn't sorted out her imperial and colonial past (because of it there are immigrants and their descendants from her former colonies in Britain) and Brexit has added hostility even towards white foreigners, especially from East Europe.

[Rickster]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

Brexit has added hostility even towards white foreigners, especially from East Europe.

Actually it's the reverse. The influx of non English speaking foreigners from eastern European, perfectly legal if they were from EU member nations, and the hostility towards them in some parts of the country was one of the drivers for the support of Brexit.

 

[Roseanna]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/12/harry-meghan-crisis-the-firm-change-royal-family-queen

[Lamb18]

Just a thought on the questions to Prince Harry about Archie's skin color: besides being racist, I wonder if the conversation was also code for asking Harry if he felt confident he was the father if the baby was dark-skinned.  

[Nicmar]

On 3/7/2021 at 8:02 PM, Trini said:

Not that racism makes sense, but Meghan's one shade away from white-passing, and Harry's a redhead. C'mon, now.

I am hoping that their baby girl has red hair. Because I am redhead and we are dying breed lol #SaveRedheads