Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

[Ohiopirate02]

21 minutes ago, Lamb18 said:

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.  

If that was the case, Harry and Meghan would have  noped out as soon as Archie was born.  The glaring hypocrisy of Charles questioning Meghan's faithfulness would immediately push Harry away. 

[statsgirl]

13 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

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.

I don't know about Anne's and Edward's children. Andrew's daughters had security until Charles cut them off when they turned 20. I don't know if it came from the Sovereign Grant or the RF's pockets.

I think that whoever pays for security for Charlotte and Louis should pay for security for Archie too.

Setting aside any possible death threats, an accident happens to William and his children and Archie is third in line for the throne and the direct sucessor should the monarchy last that long.

 

[Trillian]

6 hours ago, Zella said:

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.

That’s assuming you can trust your family members.  I can see how this interview has blown any trust the BRF has with H&M, and, if I were they, there’s no way I would say anything to them (except maybe through lawyers with a court reporter in the room).  There are reports that The Queen is planning on phoning them - she’s likely the only one who can safely get away with it.  What good could possibly come out of a talk?  If William engaged in the “good old-fashioned screaming match”, he risks H&M running to the press with how he yelled at the poor innocent pregnant woman.  If he admits any fault or misunderstanding, he risks their running to the press crowing about how he admitted the family is racist. H&M have made it clear they won’t hesitate to air the family’s dirty linen in public - I wouldn’t trust them for a second.

The whole interview smacks of extortion to me. There was a stream of public opinion in the UK that, when their trial year was up, they should be stripped of their styles and honours and titles if they didn’t return to the fold.  Now, if that’s done, it serves as confirmation of the racism claims, even if there are other reasons for it (very clever of HMQ to take the patronages away before the interview).  And the whole “security” thing is so obviously about money.   I’m rather sickened at the way they use the baby as a shield for their own wants: give us money or this poor innocent child will be virtually condemned to death by racists. Won’t someone think of the children!

[ifionlyknew]

24 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

I don't know about Anne's and Edward's children.

I wouldn't know their kids if they walked in my office right now.  Have no idea what they look like.

25 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

Andrew's daughters had security until Charles cut them off when they turned 20. I don't know if it came from the Sovereign Grant or the RF's pockets.

I do know what they look like. I wonder if they have any sort of security now. It was my understanding they were given titles at Prince Andrew's request which of course came with security.

27 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

I think that whoever pays for security for Charlotte and Louis should pay for security for Archie too.

Charlotte, Louis, Archie and his soon to be sister all need security because they are going to be photographed for the foreseeable future.  They are very well known because of the media coverage given to them.  That makes them a target.  Did whoever is in charge of these things think Archie would just go to school without some sort of protection? 

30 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

Setting aside any possible death threats, an accident happens to William and his children and Archie is third in line for the throne and the direct sucessor should the monarchy last that long.

With the world we are currently living in this is something that isn't inconceivable.  

[WinnieWinkle]

54 minutes ago, Trillian said:

 If William engaged in the “good old-fashioned screaming match”, he risks H&M running to the press with how he yelled at the poor innocent pregnant woman.

Prior to this interview is there any history of Harry and Meghan "running to the press"?  I don't think there is - they've certainly launched lawsuits against the press (well the tabloids) but that's not the same thing.  This I think is what bothers me most - they have largely remained silent since they left England and yet still are condemned when they finally do speak out as if they've been blabbing all along!  Talk about being in a can't win position.

[txhorns79]

7 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

This I think is what bothers me most - they have largely remained silent since they left England and yet still are condemned when they finally do speak out as if they've been blabbing all along!  Talk about being in a can't win position.

I may be wrong, but I presumed they largely remained silent because they had lawsuits pending.

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, Trillian said:

he risks H&M running to the press with how he yelled at the poor innocent pregnant woman.  

Sure, certainly their pattern of sitting for an interview once every few years would suggest that. 

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, Trillian said:

The whole interview smacks of extortion to me.

No, the extortion was the earlier threat to remove things from them for their silence.  The interview isn't extortion because it's done. It happened, so it's not exactly being held over the RF in exchange for something. 

[PepSinger]

1 hour ago, Trillian said:

 I can see how this interview has blown any trust the BRF has with H&M, and, if I were they, there’s no way I would say anything to them (except maybe through lawyers with a court reporter in the room).

But what about the BRF violating Meghan’s trust? Trust goes both ways.

[PepSinger]

1 hour ago, Trillian said:

The whole interview smacks of extortion to me.

What exactly would be the extortion? Their income is all set for the time being thanks to Netflix and Spotify.

[WinnieWinkle]

Just now, PepSinger said:

What exactly would be the extortion? Their income is all set for the time being thanks to Netflix and Spotify.

The only thing I think they want from the BRF at this point is an apology.  I doubt that will be forthcoming but if they've made them aware that they are no longer prepared to remain silent in the face of lies and distortion that's a win for them IMO.

[WinnieWinkle]

24 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I may be wrong, but I presumed they largely remained silent because they had lawsuits pending.

I doubt that's why they haven't addressed issues with the BRF but whatever the reason the reality is they have not been "running to the press" and yet for many that's how they are perceived, I would suggest not because they themselves are talking to anyone but because they are constantly being talked about.  

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Trillian said:

That’s assuming you can trust your family members.  I can see how this interview has blown any trust the BRF has with H&M, and, if I were they, there’s no way I would say anything to them (except maybe through lawyers with a court reporter in the room).  There are reports that The Queen is planning on phoning them - she’s likely the only one who can safely get away with it.  What good could possibly come out of a talk?  If William engaged in the “good old-fashioned screaming match”, he risks H&M running to the press with how he yelled at the poor innocent pregnant woman.  If he admits any fault or misunderstanding, he risks their running to the press crowing about how he admitted the family is racist. H&M have made it clear they won’t hesitate to air the family’s dirty linen in public - I wouldn’t trust them for a second.

The whole interview smacks of extortion to me. There was a stream of public opinion in the UK that, when their trial year was up, they should be stripped of their styles and honours and titles if they didn’t return to the fold.  Now, if that’s done, it serves as confirmation of the racism claims, even if there are other reasons for it (very clever of HMQ to take the patronages away before the interview).  And the whole “security” thing is so obviously about money.   I’m rather sickened at the way they use the baby as a shield for their own wants: give us money or this poor innocent child will be virtually condemned to death by racists. Won’t someone think of the children!

Real life is not so bipolar.  H&M had every right to speak their truth, given the BRF's willingness to let the tabloids air their grievances for them.  To me the interview smacked of marketing, not criminality. 

Now William and the rest of the BRF have a choice to make about whether to engage in negotiations to get H&M back into the Firm.  Maybe not as a wholly owned subsidiary, but as a related business partner.  Granted, that choice poses risks to the Firm's core competency.  But real life is complicated and creative.  

[blixie]

14 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

But the child thinks he's owed that money because he didn't grow up in a loving, stable, happy home. 

Heh, the first thing my niece did when her stepmother/my brother broke up (both of whom were emotionally abusive and shitty)  was say she figured they owed her 10K for their lack of/bad parenting.

As far as Kate and the rest being silenced, Will literally responded to the whole interview extemporaneously, apparently free balling it (and doing so very badly at it ), so yes they can say and do things, they are only as trapped as they choose to be, by this "system". Kensington Palace could of easily put out a statement about the wedding issue clarifying that Duchess of Sussex was blameless in the small/silly disagreement, and it was resolved privately. I think Kate is the least to blame other than Meghan, but she's is not *blameless*. More importantly and more damning by the lack, Kensington Palace for damn sure could have made a general statement of support re: Meghan and Harry, particularly noted the mental health issues associated with relentless tabloids/social media attacks, high keying the similarity to Diana's experience and their own commitment to mental health as an issue. It's why when they first started dating and the tabs were coming for Meghan, Harry made a general back the fuck off statement to the media/public.

[Lady Whistleup]

20 minutes ago, blixie said:

Heh, the first thing my niece did when her stepmother/my brother broke up (both of whom were emotionally abusive and shitty)  was say she figured they owed her 10K for their lack of/bad parenting.
 

That's exactly what I meant. Wealthy, bad/shitty parents often end up forming transactional relationships with their kids. They support them financially and the kid thinks that providing money = being a parent. 

I also think that Harry figures a tell-all with Oprah isn't a bad idea because both of his parents made it a habit to put their business out there for the whole world to see. 

[PeterPirate]

17 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

That's exactly what I meant. Wealthy, bad/shitty parents often end up forming transactional relationships with their kids. They support them financially and the kid thinks that providing money = being a parent. 

I also think that Harry figures a tell-all with Oprah isn't a bad idea because both of his parents made it a habit to put their business out there for the whole world to see. 

That would be a great idea.  Harry should do a tell-all with Oprah and reveal who asked him about Archie's skin color.  The ratings would be sky high.

[CountryGirl]

2 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I doubt that's why they haven't addressed issues with the BRF but whatever the reason the reality is they have not been "running to the press" and yet for many that's how they are perceived, I would suggest not because they themselves are talking to anyone but because they are constantly being talked about.  

I am chuckling at the perception that them giving their first interview in over a year is equated with them "running to the press/media." 

But when it comes to Meghan and Harry, it's hyperbole first and maybe, if I feel like it, ask questions later. 

[CountryGirl]

13 hours ago, bijoux said:

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

Very poignant and so spot-on.

I have to wonder how many lives did Meghan, who had the courage to speak her truth and share the darkest of dark moments in her life, save that night and in the days and nights since the interview first aired. 

 

[PepSinger]

3 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

I am chuckling at the perception that them giving their first interview in over a year is equated with them "running to the press/media." 

But when it comes to Meghan and Harry, it's hyperbole first and maybe, if I feel like it, ask questions later. 

I think it goes to what Meghan said in the interview: I am everywhere and nowhere at once. She left her house twice in four months. It’s the same thing here; she’s given one (maybe two if you count the South Africa trip) interview in 4 years. 

[CountryGirl]

Just now, PepSinger said:

I think it goes to what Meghan said in the interview: I am everywhere and nowhere at once. She left her house twice in four months. It’s the same thing here; she’s given one (maybe two if you count the South Africa trip) interview in 4 years. 

Two interviews?

In 4 years?

My gosh - she's clearly trying to monopolize the networks!

[DearEvette]

2 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I doubt that's why they haven't addressed issues with the BRF but whatever the reason the reality is they have not been "running to the press" and yet for many that's how they are perceived, I would suggest not because they themselves are talking to anyone but because they are constantly being talked about.

No kidding.  I just read a BBC UK article that cites a search engine research firm that shows from the point Harry and Meghan announced they were stepping back from royal duties, over 74,000 articles had been written about them.  Since their announcement of Meghan's pregnancy in February, another 6,000 pieces has been written and in the first week of March alone, 25,894 articles went live on Meghan.

Also in that same article it mentions something called the "pressure cooker agreement" which was an agreement negotiated by the Palace with the press to not report anything about Harry and William after Diana's death during their school years.  And in exchange the press would get access to specially curated events and photo ops of them.  At least one palace staffer got fired  after (under the agreement) she arranged with a photographer to take some pictures of William for the press to run in celebration of his 18th birthday.  But the photographer contracted privately to sell to them only to the Telegraph.  The rest of the press complained the Palace had reneged on their agreement and hence the staffer got canned.   Apparently some version of that agreement still exists wrt to William and Kate.

I was further fascinated to just learn that after Diana's death, Charles' popularity was so deep in the shitter that he hired a PR guy as his personal secretary who by all accounts was incredibly ruthless and Machiavellian.  He laid out all these long term strategies to rehab Charles and to make Camilla palatable to the public (they worked smashingly).  It was called the 'Operation PB'.  Part of that was not only to 'create' moments with the press for Charles and Camilla but also hinged on burnishing Charles by also knocking other members of the family (sound familiar).  Apparently, Edward was a favorite target.  But --- and this is foul -- he was also responsible for the exaggerated portrayals of Harry as a wild child, drinking excessively and doing drugs.  Yikes!

I am sure they have some sort of PR on retainer.  After William's  "We are a very not racist family"  statement was getting the twitter treatment, suddenly I noticed that all sorts of compliments on Kate's lovely pink coat started to trend out of nowhere.

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

No kidding.  I just read a BBC UK article that cites a search engine research firm that shows from the point Harry and Meghan announced they were stepping back from royal duties, over 74,000 articles had been written about them.  Since their announcement of Meghan's pregnancy in February, another 6,000 pieces has been written and in the first week of March alone, 25,894 articles went live on Meghan.

Also in that same article it mentions something called the "pressure cooker agreement" which was an agreement negotiated by the Palace with the press to not report anything about Harry and William after Diana's death during their school years.  And in exchange the press would get access to specially curated events and photo ops of them.  At least one palace staffer got fired  after (under the agreement) she arranged with a photographer to take some pictures of William for the press to run in celebration of his 18th birthday.  But the photographer contracted privately to sell to them only to the Telegraph.  The rest of the press complained the Palace had reneged on their agreement and hence the staffer got canned.   Apparently some version of that agreement still exists wrt to William and Kate.

I was further fascinated to just learn that after Diana's death, Charles' popularity was so deep in the shitter that he hired a PR guy as his personal secretary who by all accounts was incredibly ruthless and Machiavellian.  He laid out all these long term strategies to rehab Charles and to make Camilla palatable to the public (they worked smashingly).  It was called the 'Operation PB'.  Part of that was not only to 'create' moments with the press for Charles and Camilla but also hinged on burnishing Charles by also knocking other members of the family (sound familiar).  Apparently, Edward was a favorite target.  But --- and this is foul -- he was also responsible for the exaggerated portrayals of Harry as a wild child, drinking excessively and doing drugs.  Yikes!

I am sure they have some sort of PR on retainer.  After William's  "We are a very not racist family"  statement was getting the twitter treatment, suddenly I noticed that all sorts of compliments on Kate's lovely pink coat started to trend out of nowhere.

I wish Oprah would have had Harry expound more on the symbiotic relationship between the RF and the press.  You laid a lot of it out here, but they did not really delve into it as much as they should have.  While this was broadcast in the UK, it was an American production.  Our press does not work the same way, and Oprah knows this.  I wanted more time devoted to this.  I know from doing my own research about the Royal Rota system and Harry and Meghan's issues with it.  Not to mention the fact that serious newspapers and tabloids play in the same league in the UK.  

[Umbelina]

Vogue has a series of interesting articles up about the interview.

One is about the British/American reactions and where they differ, which also includes popularity stats on various royals mentioned in the interview, post interview.  (From a writer who lives 6 months in each country.)  This one also includes a few stats about a few commonwealth countries and spec about the fate of the monarchy, specifically after this interview.  

Another is a great and unbiased summary of the interview.

Still another is about the baby reveal, and yet another about the parts of the interview that were not aired.  

ETA there are more.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Umbelina

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I wish Oprah would have had Harry expound more on the symbiotic relationship between the RF and the press.  You laid a lot of it out here, but they did not really delve into it as much as they should have.  While this was broadcast in the UK, it was an American production.  Our press does not work the same way, and Oprah knows this.  I wanted more time devoted to this.  I know from doing my own research about the Royal Rota system and Harry and Meghan's issues with it.  Not to mention the fact that serious newspapers and tabloids play in the same league in the UK.  

Same. Hugh Grant just talked to Marc Maron for Maron's WTF podcast, and Grant said he thought the entire British Establishment was terrified of the press. There is no balance: The press definitely has the power. It hires private investigators to look through garbage, break into people's homes (Grant learned someone took his front door off its hinges to look around!!), put trackers on their cars, etc. The BRF is safer from some of this invasive behavior, but that didn't stop them from getting their phones hacked along with a lot of other prominent (and not so prominent) people. 

Harry saying his family is scared of the press rings true to me. They can't sue for everything inaccurate—they'd never be out of court. And I doubt it would do much good. Meghan suing over very specific points might give her some moral satisfaction, but it unfortunately is not going to stop the press from being awful.

[Door County Cherry]

This thread is taking a snooze until the reair of the interview.  

[susannah]

On 3/7/2021 at 7:30 PM, Arkay said:

I agree with Harry that Charles and William are trapped, as they must be kings. The same for George. But with that unbearable responsibility comes a lifestyle and privileges that very few people will ever have. 

I thought Oprah did a decent job, but I do wish she'd asked Meghan more about her father. Also, as superficial as this is, I don't think Oprah's hairstyle was flattering to her. 

Have you heard the expression that "money doesn't buy happiness?" Having a lavish lifestyle and privilege means nothing if you don't feel loved and supported and free to be who you are.

[susannah]

On 3/8/2021 at 11:55 AM, carolinagirl81 said:

The expectation was that the woman that Harry was supposed to marry, was supposed to be white. 

If that were true, there would have been no problem with Diana, or Sarah Ferguson either.

[watchingtvaddict]

The first part of this video talks about Meghan's complaints about security. 

I think the security issue is the most concerning. As regular people, we don't need security or receive intel on any type of danger we could be in. Harry has grown up with security his entire life, so I'm sure hearing his son would not be afforded the same was shocking to him. With Meghan talking about how she had to say indoors so much, I'm thinking they weren't planning on giving Archie security because he wouldn't be leaving the grounds and wouldn't require protection. 

Then the question on who would be paying for security. Archie wasn't entitled to tax payer security but, Charles could have provided private security. I think when it came to moving from Canada to the States organizing security wasn't as simple. Would Charles (if he paid for it) hire security from the U.K and then sort out their visas so they could remain in the States or would he need to take their time and hire U.S security and make sure they receive the correct clearance to access information from the intelligence community in the U.K. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by watchingtvaddict
added what I found interesting about the video I linked

[SweetieDarling]

Apparently, if it was just Harry, Meghan and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the first "wedding", it wasn't legal. 

Quote

"The vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

The revelation prompted numerous Twitter users to press Archbishop Justin Welby to offer an explanation, with some questioning the legality of such arrangements.

And Mr Oulds agreed, telling Express.co.uk: “That is a highly dubious claim.

“It cannot be right that she married Prince Harry in private, without witnesses, three days before the royal wedding.”

He added: “Weddings require witnesses, and to be open to the public, to be lawful under English law, and it is unlawful to get remarried to the same person as would have supposedly happened at the royal wedding.”

Mr Oulds suggested: “I think she must have been confused with the rehearsal.

From: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1408997/royal-news-justin-welby-meghan-markle-prince-harry-private-wedding-oprah-interview

[ifionlyknew]

8 minutes ago, SweetieDarling said:

Apparently, if it was just Harry, Meghan and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the first "wedding", it wasn't legal. 

From: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1408997/royal-news-justin-welby-meghan-markle-prince-harry-private-wedding-oprah-interview

Doesn't matter if it was legal.  It was real to them.

[deaja]

I think their backyard ceremony was just that- a ceremony for the two of them that they find meaningful. She said they exchanged different vows. I doubt it was legal and think she just didn’t explain fully. They would know that if they lied about their wedding date, it would come out as the paperwork wouldn’t match.

[Enero]

5 hours ago, watchingtvaddict said:

Then the question on who would be paying for security. Archie wasn't entitled to tax payer security but, Charles could have provided private security. I think when it came to moving from Canada to the States organizing security wasn't as simple. Would Charles (if he paid for it) hire security from the U.K and then sort out their visas so they could remain in the States or would he need to take their time and hire U.S security and make sure they receive the correct clearance to access information from the intelligence community in the U.K. 

I don’t think hiring security for their stay in America would’ve been all that complicated. After all, as soon as Charles pulled their security Tyler Perry stepped in and provided them a place to stay in the U.S. along with security until they could sort things out on their own. 

My understanding of what was said in the interview was that they high tailed it to the U.S.  because their security had been pulled by Charles and their location had been leaked to the public. I think even if their location had been leaked but they continued to have security they would’ve remained in Canada longer. 

13 minutes ago, deaja said:

 

I think their backyard ceremony was just that- a ceremony for the two of them that they find meaningful. She said they exchanged different vows. I doubt it was legal and think she just didn’t explain fully. They would know that if they lied about their wedding date, it would come out as the paperwork wouldn’t match.

 

This is what I got from it as well. I shouldn’t be surprised though that someone has gone on the attack with that too to claim it was a lie, illegal etc. when clearly Meghan meant that was a personal ceremony for them which I’m certain they cherish more than the  pomp and circumstance of the legal ceremony the following day. 

[Hiyo]

This is starting to feel like Lost, where we are supposed to infer what was meant versus what was seen on screen...

(Does that make Charles the Smoke Monster then?)

[Adiba]

17 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

This is starting to feel like Lost, where we are supposed to infer what was meant versus what was seen on screen...

(Does that make Charles the Smoke Monster then?)

Huh? Not a watcher of Lost, but I don't think it takes a genius to comprehend the meaning and context of what was said without having everything specifically spelled out. They are not on trial.

[CountryGirl]

1 hour ago, deaja said:

I think their backyard ceremony was just that- a ceremony for the two of them that they find meaningful. She said they exchanged different vows. I doubt it was legal and think she just didn’t explain fully. They would know that if they lied about their wedding date, it would come out as the paperwork wouldn’t match.

Yes to all of this. 

Neither she or Harry said anything whatsoever about the backyard ceremony being “legal” or “valid” or “legally binding.” To think that a beautiful moment for just the two of them is being twisted into them lying is...something  

 

[Hiyo]

Considering how there is some confusion in what they are saying, I’d say it had nothing to do with being a genius or not.

Of course they are on trial. They, along with the RF, are on trial in the court of public opinion.

 

[BlackberryJam]

I refuse to link the Daily Mail as it’s 99.99% a trash rag, but it has a somewhat informative article (if you cut out the nasty innuendo, particularly about Oprah) checking the interview. It points out how their statements contradict each other, CBS used US/Australian headlines and cropped headlines to smear the British press (and really, what the fuck? The British tabloid press is bad enough on its own, there’s no need to fake that crap), the security decision, Charles footing the bill...

I feel dirty from having read the DM at all, but H&M peddled a ton of slanted and inaccurate information and that matters. 

 

[Rose Quartz]

1 hour ago, SweetieDarling said:

Mr Oulds suggested: “I think she must have been confused with the rehearsal.

I don't know who this guy is, but that's an incredibly condescending statement.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, SweetieDarling said:

Apparently, if it was just Harry, Meghan and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the first "wedding", it wasn't legal. 

From: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1408997/royal-news-justin-welby-meghan-markle-prince-harry-private-wedding-oprah-interview

Interesting.  I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury would say H&M were married in eyes of God.  Kinda like how Kings and Queens of England are anointed and not elected.  

The cognitive dissonance abounds.  

[Adiba]

27 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

Considering how there is some confusion in what they are saying, I’d say it had nothing to do with being a genius or not.

Of course they are on trial. They, along with the RF, are on trial in the court of public opinion.

 

I just think people have already made their minds up about the Sussexes, which colors their perception of what is said or not said. Nothing is going to change anyone’s mind, necessarily. As a US citizen, I don’t really have a strong opinion about the institution of the BRF in general.
 I just see Harry and Meghan struggling and I have empathy for them as human beings. 

[BlackberryJam]

4 minutes ago, Adiba said:

 I just see Harry and Meghan struggling and I have empathy for them as human beings. 

Maybe I’m just cold and dead inside, or I only have limited amount of sympathy to give. I just didn’t connect with them on any emotional level. I’ve felt for people. I feel for people. I’ve spent time with people and had my heart ripped from my chest just listening to them. 

These two? Not so much. Then again, Harry is a horrific douche and I make it a policy not to feel sympathy for horrific douches. 

 

13 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Interesting.  I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury would say H&M were married in eyes of God.  Kinda like how Kings and Queens of England are anointed and not elected.  

The cognitive dissonance abounds.  

The office of the Archbishop is saying that the marriage license was issued for the wedding at St. George’s. 

[Hiyo]

“I just see Harry and Meghan struggling andI have empathy for them as human beings.”

It is possible to have empathy for people while still taking some of what they say with a grain of salt.

[SweetieDarling]

I was not calling Meghan a liar (the writer of the article, seems to think so). I was offering clarification on the earlier questions as to if they were really married before the wedding. 

I can only imagine how difficult it would be to be scrutinized for every perceived misstep because one didn't follow proper royal protocol, especially as an American, not being used to so many rules like wearing pantyhose or not crossing your legs, or having to curtsy for your husband's grandmother during a casual visit, and many others I'm sure are steeped in tradition. I don't blame them for wanting out. I'm not a fan of how they went about it, but I don't know all the details. I hope Meghan was able to get the help she needed for her depression.

[dubbel zout]

10 minutes ago, SweetieDarling said:

I hope Meghan was able to get the help she needed for her depression.

It's too bad Oprah didn't follow up a bit on that, because getting help is as important as asking for it, IMO.

[deaja]

1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

This is starting to feel like Lost, where we are supposed to infer what was meant versus what was seen on screen...

(Does that make Charles the Smoke Monster then?)

The raw interview footage was reportedly about 4 hours. It had to be cut down to 80 minutes for the broadcast. Of course Oprah and CBS would rather have time for the more salacious stuff than “did you sign the license that day?”

[Hiyo]

I’m surprised they didn’t make it a 2 part special.

[CountryGirl]

Even if I knew nothing about Meghan, if she were not Meghan Markle, but Jane Doe, a stranger on the street, and she told me that there was a time in her life when she literally did not want to be alive anymore, I cannot fathom feeling nothing for her. To see the lack of compassion for her that I’ve seen in the aftermath of the interview, from indifferent shrugging to dismissing her because of who she is to suggestions that she brought it on herself is just sad, especially after all the past year has brought for all of us via the pandemic and it’s not over yet. 

But I forget myself as I’m sure Megan was lying or telling partial truths about being very close to taking her own life along with everything else. 

[PeterPirate]

49 minutes ago, SweetieDarling said:

I was not calling Meghan a liar (the writer of the article, seems to think so). I was offering clarification on the earlier questions as to if they were really married before the wedding. 

My apologies if I sounded like I was being critical of you.  I try not to be too wordy and sometimes I don't get my point across.  I will elaborate here.  

1 hour ago, BlackberryJam said:

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

Interesting.  I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury would say H&M were married in eyes of God.  Kinda like how Kings and Queens of England are anointed and not elected.  

The cognitive dissonance abounds.  

The office of the Archbishop is saying that the marriage license was issued for the wedding at St. George’s. 

My post was not about the legality of the pre-wedding, but about its spirituality.  Purportedly, the Queen of the United Kingdom is the Head of the Church of England, and is "anointed" to that position by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  If that is the case, what is to be said about a private ceremony that is performed by the same Archbishop of Canterbury?   How can a royalist accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury has the authority from heaven to anoint the head of the church, but not the authority to declare a marriage that is recognized in heaven, albeit not one recognized by the secular government?  

Quite the conundrum, I submit.  I imagine a lot of royalists will avoid having to think about it.  Maybe by focusing on the "efficient" and not the "dignified".

Edited March 13, 2021 by PeterPirate

[BlackberryJam]

24 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

Even if I knew nothing about Meghan, if she were not Meghan Markle, but Jane Doe, a stranger on the street, and she told me that there was a time in her life when she literally did not want to be alive anymore, I cannot fathom feeling nothing for her. To see the lack of compassion for her that I’ve seen in the aftermath of the interview, from indifferent shrugging to dismissing her because of who she is to suggestions that she brought it on herself is just sad, especially after all the past year has brought for all of us via the pandemic and it’s not over yet. 

But I forget myself as I’m sure Megan was lying or telling partial truths about being very close to taking her own life along with everything else. 

But we aren't meeting her on the street and she was not a person in crisis. During the prerecorded, curated staged and edited interview, she was absolutely and completely safe with every resource she could possibly want available at her fingertips. Seeing a human being in actually crisis is one thing, this was absolutely not that. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

My apologies if I sounded like I was being critical of you.  I try not to be too wordy and sometimes I don't get my point across.  I will elaborate here.  

My post was not about the legality of the pre-wedding, but about its spirituality.  Purportedly, the Queen of the United Kingdom is the Head of the Church of England, and is "anointed" to that position by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  If that is the case, what is to be said about a private ceremony that is performed by the same Archbishop of Canterbury?   How can a royalist accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury has the authority from heaven to anoint the head of the church, but not the authority to declare a marriage that is recognized in heaven, albeit not one recognized by the secular government?  

Quite the conundrum, I submit.  I imagine a lot of royalists will avoid having to think about it.  Maybe by focusing on the "efficient" and not the "dignified".

Plenty of officially married couples do a "thing" where they declare their love, say vows, etc, and consider themselves married. For them, that's a spiritual marriage and that's great. I have been in at least three weddings when the bride and groom did something like that to "take the pressure off" before the big splashy wedding. They considered themselves emotionally married at that point. It's not a big deal. One set did their unofficial wedding in front of a sacred grove (godswood) using Game of Thrones vows. 

The point is though that the Archbishop is saying that the official recognized ceremony is the one with the license.

Edited March 13, 2021 by BlackberryJam
Hit submit before I read through.

[CountryGirl]

46 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

But we aren't meeting her on the street and she was not a person in crisis. During the prerecorded, curated staged and edited interview, she was absolutely and completely safe with every resource she could possibly want available at her fingertips. Seeing a human being in actually crisis is one thing, this was absolutely not that. 

I was very clearly not referring to her present state (aka during last Sunday's interview), which what that has to do with my post, I'll never know.

I was referring to her being in crisis previous to that (thus the there was a time in her life reference in my post) and that I had compassion for her and would have compassion for anyone who at any point in their life thought the only solution was to kill themselves.

Am I only allowed to have compassion for someone in immediate crisis or danger? 

No need to respond as that should be a rhetorical question but also, I'm stepping away from this thread.