Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

[BlackberryJam]

7 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

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.

We absolutely were not talking about who’s “allowed” to have compassion. I was in no way policing or attempting to police your emotions. I was explaining my reactions and then stating that I believe part of my reaction was the staged nature of the interview.

I also do the Broadcast News thing with interviews like this and question if they are single or multi-camera. I’m pretty sure the H&M interview was multi-camera, so not an issue. Call me a cynic.

[GaT]

The receipts are starting to come out

Meghan's Email to the Palace About the Kate Crying Rumor Was Made Public

Quote

Harper's Bazaar royal reporter Omid Scobie revealed part of the email that Meghan wrote to royal aides when they asked Prince Harry to cosign a statement squashing rumors that Prince William "constantly bullied” the Sussexes before they stepped down from senior royal duties. According to Scobie's source, Meghan wrote: "Well, if we're just throwing any statement out there now, then perhaps KP can finally set the record straight about me [not making Kate cry.]"

Meghan Markle's Friend Janina Gavankar Says There Are 'Emails and Texts' to Support Claims in Oprah Interview

Quote

"You know, after reading this short statement that came out from Buckingham Palace today, I felt two things," said Janina. "One side, I thought: I am so thankful that they are finally acknowledging the experience. But on the other side, I know that the family and staff were well aware of the extent of it, and though their recollections may vary, ours don't, because we lived through it with them. And there are many emails and texts to support that."

 

[BlackberryJam]

3 minutes ago, GaT said:

The receipts are starting to come out

Meghan's Email to the Palace About the Kate Crying Rumor Was Made Public

Meghan Markle's Friend Janina Gavankar Says There Are 'Emails and Texts' to Support Claims in Oprah Interview

 

Didn’t Omid’s book on H&M specifically state that there were no tears at all during the dress fitting incident? (It did, I read it. It was a terrible book and I got so tired of hearing how Meghan and noted-racist Jessica Mulroney* curated every outfit Meghan ever wore.) While I’m absolutely certain Meghan kept every email and text, I don’t consider Scobie a reliable source. 

*Meghan seems to have cut her off, which is definitely warranted, so my note about Mulroney isn’t a knock on Meghan, but just because Mulroney is trying a comeback tour.

[Kromm]

This Entertainment Tonight piece has some details I haven't seen elsewhere, as well as a "Royal Expert", who for a change, is pro-Meghan. 

 

EDIT - Oh, it's this same Omid fellow. And I hadn't yet seen the most recent posts talking about him, and that email. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Kromm

[izabella]

4 hours ago, Enero said:

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.

Do we know why Tyler Perry made that generous offer?  Are they friends?

[Umbelina]

This may be a bit disjointed, so I apologize in advance.  In thinking about all that was said in this interview, and in various media (pro and con) since this interview, a few things stand out as "the most important" to me.

1.  The FIRM being in bed with the press.  This is the number one revelation for me, and one I completely believe is true.

I wish Harry had gone into it more, and Meghan as well, but obviously, Harry knows more first hand about this, since he's been living it his entire life.  Personally, this is a tad embarrassing, but mid last year I ended up clicking on a couple of Covid articles on Facebook that did come from what I now realize is the British "tabloid" or "gutter" press.  Since I clicked?  I am inundated with other articles, nearly every single day, that attack Meghan and sometimes, Harry.  Honestly, I was completely shocked by the vitriol, and the comments.  As I said, it's daily.  

In all that time, I've never seen a "bad" article about Camilla, Kate, William, or Charles, but more importantly, no mention of Andrew or his refusal to cooperate with the FBI.  Not one.  Of course there are the usual flattering articles posted by these tabloids about all of the above (not Andrew) and including the Queen.

Honestly, it shocked me to my core, the endless hate, the not so veiled racism, just the obvious marketability of Meghan, and even before Harry and Meghan said so in the interview, my feelings were that they were the sacrificial lambs thrown to the rabid press, to protect more important members of the Royal family.

Bottom line?  I believe Harry and Meghan about this, and frankly, want to hear more about this side of things.

2.  Harry's revealing comment that William and Charles are trapped, along with Meghan saying that Kate probably wasn't allowed to set the record straight, and that Kate is a good person.

This is important to me as well, when thinking about this interview and the aftermath.  Truthfully, I don't give one shit about Charles, I've never liked him, never respected him, and honestly, never thought he would be King.  However, I didn't think that one of his children might, in the end, be the final nail it that coffin.  I feel that Charles hammered in enough nails on his own.  Will this be that final nail?  Perhaps it will.

Still Harry showed compassion there by saying that they are trapped by the system as well.  They are not in the meat grinder of that system, as Harry and Meghan were/are, but still, "trapped." 

The "system" or "FIRM" or "men in gray suits" as Diana and Fergie referred to them, seem to be so completely out of touch with the reality of the world today.  Going back to point 1 I made.  Do I believe they participated in this complete decimation of Meghan, and thus Harry, in order to protect the important members of the family?  Yes.  I do.  Do I believe the Queen was actively involved in this?  Who knows, but honestly, I don't think I do.  I think she's gone along with "advice" from them for most of her (all of her) life, and can't really be expected to change now.  

However, Charles?  He knows that meat grinder, he knows the "system" and he knows "the firm" because he was once splashed all over the tabloids.  He used a similar system back then, to cast the blame all on Diana.  (ETA, Diana used the press as well for the same reasons.)  He's well aware, in my opinion, of everything that has been happening to Meghan and to Harry, aware in ways I doubt the Queen is.  His focus has been the careful press massaging that would make him more suitable as King, and more importantly, Camilla accepted as Queen.  Whatever the cost.

I don't think this is off topic, because I do think this is exactly what Harry was saying in that interview, as openly as he could, which was not quite as blunt as he (or Meghan) could have been.  The implications though?  Were quite clear.

• That they had protected other family members by sacrificing Meghan, Harry, and even Archie to the press.
• That his father refused his calls.
• That he isn't in contact with either his brother or his father, but hopes that will change.
• That he left because he was frightened for the safety of his wife and his baby, and repeatedly asked for help, while still a working royal, and was ignored/denied.
• That the "press" is in bed with the "firm" and he used the parties for them as an example, then held back on some of the rest, unwilling to go further in direct accusations, but they were implied throughout the rest of the interview.

It's a serious mess, in my opinion, and that reply from "the firm" because certainly the Queen didn't actually write that tone deaf response, was beyond inadequate, and has already backfired.  My question here, is how much of this mess is actually the fault of the Mountbatten-Windsor family, and how much is the fault of the "firm" or "men in gray suits" that seem to have been much of the problem in the last 40+ years?  

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Umbelina
typo and added the Diana comment about the press

[Bliss]

As soon as I read any post/article/comment that Meghan is ALL bad (pick your adjective), I stop reading. as it is obviously a "hater" thing. Life is too short for wasting time on crap nasty opinions. Besides, I believe in karma (eventually the haters will reap what they've sown).

I don't know the woman at all; however, I've read enough about her to know she's intelligent, compassionate, funny, and all sorts of other 'adjectives'. I give her kudos for the work she does, especially empowering other women, and the fact that she summons the courage to use her powerful voice. I admire women (and men) who take a stand for what they believe in, and share from the heart. This interview is the first time I've heard HER speak about what she's gone through the past few years. I don't know anyone who could have so many lies spread about them for such a long period of time without speaking out. Can you imagine what that is like?

She didn't need to marry a prince - she was independently wealthy. Yes, she's an actress and I'm sure that affects opinions about her. I certainly don't think just because someone is trained to 'act', that means they're constantly 'on'. Nobody could sustain that for very long. I've always thought that the best actors are the people who can suspend my disbelief, usually because they're so in touch with their emotions. (I've never understood how they can do bedroom scenes when they aren't actually in love with their partner... just sayin.)

I haven't seen a single episode of Suits. My friends told me Meghan plays a whiner in the show. Just their opinion. Perhaps people are collapsing that image of the role she played with who she actually is? Think of what's-his-name (Anthony Hopkins?) in Silence of the Lambs... well, maybe cancel that thought. Ick.

All you have to look at is how she is with her animals, her son, her husband, her mom, her friends, other people's children, etc., to see the love she exudes. Even P Morgan thought she was lovely and delightful until she "rejected" him. When people who've worked with her for 10 years say that she's a wonderful woman, brilliant, etc., (and they're not paid for their testimony), I tend to give that sort of judgment more weight. They actually KNOW her. They've seen her at her best and probably at her worst, and as we all know, humans swing both ways. None of us are perfect (my hubby may disagree) and yet we are all perfect in how we mirror others, what we bring out in others. So, if someone sees the ugly in her, perhaps that's because they need to take a look at their own ugly. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who think they know it all. Because they are never wrong, they are firmly entrenched in their media-driven opinions, they believe every bit of gossip they hear or read, they prefer to be in bed with drama rather than the truth, or they're friends with P Morgan. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Noone is entitled to bullying another soul, even if anonymously. (hint: karma)

My sincere sympathies to those who are hurt by the media's contrivances, bad press, and hateful reactions. Sometimes, all you can do is pull up your big girl pants and move forward. Leave the ickies in your dust! What's that expression? Success is the best revenge. Yes!

Here's hoping Harry, Meghan, Archie and baby girl (I'm calling her Princess LOL) will find enough peace and harmony to live a purposeful life and make a positive contribution to our very sick world. We need more GOOD-hearted people who want to support others, not destroy them.

[Roseanna]

On 3/12/2021 at 5:25 PM, ifionlyknew said:

It was my understanding they were given titles at Prince Andrew's request

No, Andrew's daughters became princesses as the Sovereign's son's children on the basis of Letters Patent 1917 by George V. Cf. Princess Alexandra of Kent whose father was George V's younger son, the late duke of Kent.

Instead, the Queen's youngest son, Edward, didn't want the royal title for his children. 

[Hiyo]

Edward also doesn’t have a royal dukedom as well...his choice supposedly, since he wants his father’s title once Phillip passes away.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

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? 

Crowning and anointing must be a public act. The Sovereign makes his/he vow which is followed by oaths of allegiance.

A marriage is essentially a legal agreement and demands wittneses.

3 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

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.

I understand that the couple may *feel* married, and legally they aren't.

I wish Meghan would have kept the matter secret for now it may seem that she can't differ fact and fiction of her own mind and that H&M only *acted* in the church and deceived their guests and audience.    

[PepSinger]

31 minutes ago, Bliss said:

Yes, she's an actress and I'm sure that affects opinions about her. I certainly don't think just because someone is trained to 'act', that means they're constantly 'on'. Nobody could sustain that for very long. I've always thought that the best actors are the people who can suspend my disbelief, usually because they're so in touch with their emotions. (I've never understood how they can do bedroom scenes when they aren't actually in love with their partner... just sayin.)

I think you've said a word here. I definitely think that there's some underneath the surface stereotypical thoughts about actors that are playing into thoughts about her, too. As an actor myself, it's very annoying to be asked if I'm acting as I go about my real life. If you're not paying me, then, no, I'm not acting.

5 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I wish Meghan would have kept the matter secret for now it may seem that she can't differ fact and fiction of her own mind and that H&M only *acted* in the church and deceived their guests and audience.

You think a grown 39 year old woman of sound mind and body doesn't know the difference between fact and fiction?

I highly doubt her wedding guests are pressed about any of this. I don't believe her guests called her up and screamed, "You invited me to a fake wedding! How dare you!" after they saw her interview.

[Umbelina]

I honestly don't understand the uproar about the "private wedding ceremony."

Actually, the part I really don't understand is that the Archbishop being there!  (Also, I seriously doubt that they would lie about that!)

What is understandable to me is that, to them, the real wedding was the private one, where they made personal vows to one another (since framed and kept in their house) and perhaps blessed by the Archbishop.  Seriously, how was he there?  

I've read enough through the years to know that the UK has very specific rules about marriage, odd things to this American, and possibly some have changed over the years.  I didn't hear Meghan or Harry say that the backyard wedding was the legal wedding.  Anyone?  I could have missed it, because honestly, I felt that I understood what they were getting at (except for the Archbishop being there.)

We've all heard and seen many times that Royal Weddings are a huge "show" and a spectacle, and important to the "press" of the Royal Family, big draws, good publicity, lots of sales and tourists and basically, good business for everyone.  I can certainly see that, especially with the reveals in this interview, that both or either of Harry and Meghan wanted something meaningful to them, rather than just a "show" for the monarchy.  They went through with the show, and most probably the "legal" wedding in whatever Abby it was.  BUT, they also had a private ceremony with their own vows, that is more meaningful to them.

Also, editing.  It's quite possible the edit left out things they said that clarified this, not in a deliberate way, but simply for "flow" of the interview.

ETA

Just googled. 

Quote

 

Though the private backyard ceremony sounds oh-so-romantic, Meghan and Harry's spokesperson tells E! News the couple was, in fact, legally married on May 19, as most people thought.

Their three-person vow exchange appears to be mostly for sentimental reasons, rather than legally binding ones. 

 

https://www.eonline.com/news/1246019/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-were-not-legally-married-in-private-backyard-ceremony

Edited March 13, 2021 by Umbelina

[Bliss]

12 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I honestly don't understand the uproar about the "private wedding ceremony."

Me neither. I could care less whether it was legal, illegal, or witnessed. It is also none of my business.

Personally, I smiled when they divulged the info during the interview... I found it beautiful and meaningful (for them). I actually married my partner in my driveway (spur of the moment thing - we were sweaty and dressed in gardening clothes). It was absolutely glorious and I'll always remember "the moment". It was also totally illegal. WTF cares?

I almost wish they hadn't revealed that part of their life as it's been somewhat tarnished by the media now. What was sacred is now clickbait.

What is positive about their reveal is that it may give others the idea of doing something similar... weddings nowadays seem more about the dress, flowers, cake, photos, etc., than what's really important - the vows! - the marriage!

I do wonder which date they celebrate as their anniversary. I'd pick the first one, legal or not.

[kieyra]

I’ve mostly been lurking/befuddled through all this, but I’m extra befuddled why anyone would care about a separate private ceremony. People do this time. Or they do the legal part at the courthouse and the performative part later. Or they have one ceremony in a church where unworthies are not allowed to attend (LDS), and another in the backyard for the apostates in the family. Etc etc. 

I hate that I’m about to ask this, but are people acting like this calls the kid’s legitimacy into question, or some other Tudor-era nonsense like that? 

[Umbelina]

13 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I’ve mostly been lurking/befuddled through all this, but I’m extra befuddled why anyone would care about a separate private ceremony. People do this time. Or they do the legal part at the courthouse and the performative part later. Or they have one ceremony in a church where unworthies are not allowed to attend (LDS), and another in the backyard for the apostates in the family. Etc etc. 

I hate that I’m about to ask this, but are people acting like this calls the kid’s legitimacy into question, or some other Tudor-era nonsense like that? 

From what I've seen, most tabloids/comments are using it more as proof that Meghan is a liar.  Not Harry, who also talked about it, just Meghan.

As far as the legitimacy of Archie and the future baby, the thing I keep seeing is that both kids are actually through a surrogate mother, and Meghan has always worn a fake "baby bump" to fool everyone.  (yes really)  That is also apparently why Archie isn't "dark."   Sorry if that is at all off topic, but trying to answer your question.  So, no, since no one is doubting that Harry is the father, and Archie was born long after the wedding, no one that I've seen has questioned their legitimacy as far as royalty is concerned.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Umbelina

[BlackberryJam]

11 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I’ve mostly been lurking/befuddled through all this, but I’m extra befuddled why anyone would care about a separate private ceremony. People do this time. Or they do the legal part at the courthouse and the performative part later. Or they have one ceremony in a church where unworthies are not allowed to attend (LDS), and another in the backyard for the apostates in the family. Etc etc. 

I hate that I’m about to ask this, but are people acting like this calls the kid’s legitimacy into question, or some other Tudor-era nonsense like that? 

I think the brouhaha is because the St. George ceremony was a huge taxpayer expense, and there’s the feeling of, “We paid for this lavish ceremony for you and it wasn’t even the real thing??” Coupled with the position that this was just another inaccurate statement made during the interview. 

[kieyra]

1 minute ago, BlackberryJam said:

I think the brouhaha is because the St. George ceremony was a huge taxpayer expense, and there’s the feeling of, “We paid for this lavish ceremony for you and it wasn’t even the real thing??” Coupled with the position that this was just another inaccurate statement made during the interview. 

For God’s sake. Maybe I’m just cynical, but I think most wedding ceremonies are just theater, and royal weddings like a thousand times so. 

And they would have been in “trouble” if they hadn’t had the public spectacle wedding. Because you know the public feels they are owed a spectacle. Lose/lose.

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I think the brouhaha is because the St. George ceremony was a huge taxpayer expense, and there’s the feeling of, “We paid for this lavish ceremony for you and it wasn’t even the real thing??” Coupled with the position that this was just another inaccurate statement made during the interview. 

 

1 minute ago, kieyra said:

For God’s sake. Maybe I’m just cynical, but I think most wedding ceremonies are just theater, and royal weddings like a thousand times so. 

And they would have been in “trouble” if they hadn’t had the public spectacle wedding. Because you know the public feels they are owed a spectacle. Lose/lose.

The lavish televised weddings (the boost to the U.K. economy from Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding was an estimated $1.5 billion), buzzy tours of Commonwealth countries and public displays of pomp and circumstance generate massive interest—and profits—for a global business enterprise that spans from prime real estate in central London to remote farmlands in Scotland.

That wedding earned more than it cost.  Specific finances are in this article, and other financial matters raised by this interview, such as William and Harry's salaries though Charles, etc.

Inside ‘The Firm’: How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works

[Kromm]

12 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I think the brouhaha is because the St. George ceremony was a huge taxpayer expense, and there’s the feeling of, “We paid for this lavish ceremony for you and it wasn’t even the real thing??” Coupled with the position that this was just another inaccurate statement made during the interview. 

But that's the rub.  They're endlessly, selectively blamed (or rather, the evil mixed race woman usually is) no matter how things shake out. 

The people who blame them for the huge expensive public wedding conveniently ignore that the real implication of the smaller ceremony is that they didn't want the larger one.  That it was done for OTHER people. But Meghan is apparently still the you-know-what that pissed away all that taxpayer money (for something she didn't need, probably didn't ask for, or apparently want).  It's somehow HER fault. 

And like most of the "inaccurate statements" in the Interview, it seems to boil down to nitpicking around the edges of what she said, usually conveniently forgetting the white guy sitting next to her said something similar, and extrapolating.  She mentions an earlier ceremony, and it becomes necessary to use it as a lever to call her a liar. Only the NICER interpretations call it a half truth. 

Ditto for all the harping on how Harry had a shrink, and how that supposedly proves she's a liar about being refused professional intervention when she felt suicidal. The attacks on that charge are convenient assumptions magnified, not even real arguments. 

She's not without an agenda here. She's spinning a narrative to champion her position. But what did people expect? Ultimately the way it's being pulled apart and indicted on niggling details that don't have much to do with her main accusations just help prove her point. 

[BlackberryJam]

Couple things here. People asked some questions about the legality of the backyard ceremony. I answered them with facts. People asked why some people are fussed about whether the backyard ceremony was legal or not. I answered them.

Personally, I don’t care about the ceremony, but I dislike any government entity lying to me about where my tax dollars are going and then turning around telling me it was for my own good anyway. Fuck that all to hell. But I’m American.

And I’ve said it many, many times in this thread, I despise Harry. My main emotion towards Meghan is pity and then shaking my head and thinking her foolish for marrying such a completely trash human being.

I haven’t parsed which of them said what.

I do think truth and accuracy matter, especially in this type of interview.

On that note, ANL has sent a letter to CBS about the edited/non-Brit tabloid montage being used to illustrate the bad behavior of the British tabloid press. The fact that the montage is inaccurate really, really pisses me off because there was no need for it. There are plenty of genuine British tabloid headlines they could have used. Instead, this inaccuracy dilutes the point.

[Kromm]

8 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I don’t care about the ceremony, but I dislike any government entity lying to me about where my tax dollars are going and then turning around telling me it was for my own good anyway.

I guess that begs the question... who's the government entity you blame here?  Is it Meghan?  Meghan and Harry as a unit?  The British government?  The Royal Family? 

It matters only because of the context of the criticism, inside a larger discussion of people picking apart Meghan and her words. So our own words surrounding the situation probably require a similar level of care, at least to support our other arguments (obviously little of it matters outside of this thread). 

If the premise is that the expense wasn't necessary, who's responsible? And it can certainly be a split answer between who's responsible for the expense and who's responsible for any lies surrounding it. 

 

[BlackberryJam]

12 minutes ago, Kromm said:

I guess that begs the question... who's the government entity you blame here?  Is it Meghan?  Meghan and Harry as a unit?  The British government?  The Royal Family? 

It matters only because of the context of the criticism, inside a larger discussion of people picking apart Meghan and her words. So our own words surrounding the situation probably require a similar level of care, at least to support our other arguments (obviously little of it matters outside of this thread). 

If the premise is that the expense wasn't necessary, who's responsible? And it can certainly be a split answer between who's responsible for the expense and who's responsible for any lies surrounding it. 

 

Oh no no no. You’ve misunderstood. I was responding to Umbelina’s post about how the wedding brought in money, therefore it was really good for the British taxpayer.

As I said, I don’t care about the wedding. I don’t care who planned it. I don’t care who okayed it. I’m not a British taxpayer so I don’t have a dog in the fight.

But when someone makes the argument of “Oh, we lied to you about how we spent your money but it was for your own good!” I’m not okay with that, in any context. So whatever happened, I find that argument in support problematic and call it out. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by BlackberryJam

[izabella]

I wanted Oprah to ask more about "the Institution" or "the Firm" that we are to understand is separate from the family.  Who are those people?  Are they making all the decisions for the family?  Does the family get to make any of their own decisions at all?   How much control do they have and why do they control so many family things?    I wanted to know more about this shadowy entity that controls everything shown to the public. 

[deaja]

28 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

But when someone makes the argument of “Oh, we lied to you about how we spent your money but it was for your own good!” I’m not okay with that, in any context. So whatever happened, I find that argument in support problematic and call it out

Having a private moment for the two of them before the big ceremony does not equal “we lied for your own good.” The big wedding was likely the legal one, but it was also the spectacle one. 

[kieyra]

32 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

But when someone makes the argument of “Oh, we lied to you about how we spent your money but it was for your own good!” I’m not okay with that, in any context.

I think I’m missing what the lie is. 

[Umbelina]

11 minutes ago, izabella said:

I wanted Oprah to ask more about "the Institution" or "the Firm" that we are to understand is separate from the family.  Who are those people?  Are they making all the decisions for the family?  Does the family get to make any of their own decisions at all?   How much control do they have and why do they control so many family things?    I wanted to know more about this shadowy entity that controls everything shown to the public. 

https://time.com/5945032/what-is-the-firm-royal-family/

The senior royals, obviously—including Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip; Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall; and Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. But the institution also consists of the offices that manage royal affairs, including the Private Secretary’s Office, the Privy Purse and the Treasurer’s Office. These departments, like at any company, manage everything from the Queen’s government relations to finances and human resources. (This broad coalition of employees is officially called the Royal Household, and consists of hundreds of workers.)

During Markle’s interview with Winfrey, she made two distinctions. First, she drew a line between the family and the “institution”: “So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution,” she said. And she drew a line between her personal relationship with the head of the family and her dealings with the institution, saying that Queen Elizabeth “has always been wonderful to me.” In contrast, she said that she requested mental health support from the institution’s HR, but was denied because she was not technically on payroll.

 

How is The Firm connected to the royal press?

The royal press—called the Royal Rota—and the royal family share a symbiotic relationship, with the press reporting extensively on the family’s events in exchange for access. Given the appetite for royal news in the U.K., the relationship has been lucrative for the media and important for the family in their attempts to maintain relevance and a connection with non-royals without sacrificing privacy. But the proximity of the two was disturbing to the Sussexes. “There’s a reason the tabloids have holiday parties at the palace,” Markle said.

As Winfrey’s interview pointed out, Markle did not experience a positive working relationship with the Royal Rota, especially in comparison to the treatment of other members of the royal family. Her experience of harassment in the tabloids is well-documented. In fact, Markle recently won a part of her suit against Associated Newspapers for privacy invasion and copyright infringement. (A third portion of the suit, around data protection, remains to be argued.)

There is more here about finances and other issues addressed in the interview.  More about "The Firm" here (and about the interview):  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielshapiro/2021/03/10/inside-the-firm-how-the-royal-familys-28-billion-money-machine-really-works/?sh=38dd1d2b2bcc

Beyond the extended family, the House of Windsor has thousands of employees around the world. Buckingham Palace alone employs some 1,200 people—even if they aren't always paid a Queen’s ransom to work there. An entry-level IT specialist can make upwards of $40,000 a year, as well as benefits, at Buckingham Palace, according to a recent job listing on an official palace portal. The Crown Estate, the institution that oversees the assets of the monarchy, also employs an additional 450 people, including a board of directors that make the financial decisions for the monarchy.

 It's difficult to find an actual number of how many people are employed by the Crown, there are several properties that must be managed as well, but it certainly seems to be a lot, all of whom have a vested interest in the monarchy continuing.  It's their livelihoods.  I think the "firm" that Harry and Meghan were talking about, and that previously Diana and Fergie talked about, are the managers and advisers, the PR people, and those loyal to various other royals who employ them, Charles and Camilla's staff for example.

I'd love to see an exact number if anyone has one.

ETA they also have at least 26 properties requiring management and gardeners and all the rest, but I don't think lowly housekeepers are what everyone refers to as "the firm" but rather the courtiers and decision makers.  https://www.veranda.com/luxury-lifestyle/g27044934/royal-family-homes/#:~:text=A Look at the 26 Homes Owned by the British Royal Family&text=It's common knowledge that the,Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace.

[PeterPirate]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

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".

Crowning and anointing must be a public act. The Sovereign makes his/he vow which is followed by oaths of allegiance.

A marriage is essentially a legal agreement and demands wittneses.

I understand that the couple may *feel* married, and legally they aren't.

I wish Meghan would have kept the matter secret for now it may seem that she can't differ fact and fiction of her own mind and that H&M only *acted* in the church and deceived their guests and audience.    

 

See, that both misses my point and proves it at the same time.  Some people in this world take their faith very seriously.  The act of anointing goes back to the Old Testament.  So does the institution of marriage.  To treat either ceremony as simply a legal matter strips away the spiritual underpinnings and legitimacy of the British monarchy.   They might as well have the Prime Minister instead of the Archbishop of Canterbury place the crown on Charles' head when the time comes.  

Edited March 14, 2021 by PeterPirate

[BlackberryJam]

13 minutes ago, deaja said:

Having a private moment for the two of them before the big ceremony does not equal “we lied for your own good.” The big wedding was likely the legal one, but it was also the spectacle one. 

This has now gone circular. People asked if the backyard wedding was the real one or not, and I responded that the St. George’s wedding was the real one. 

People asked why the fuss which one was real, and I answered that I believed it was because the British taxpayers were upset about possibly paying for a wedding that wasn’t actually an official wedding. 

Then it went into, “well, the spectacle made money for the UK, so the expense was just fine no matter if it was the real one or not.”

And I’m like, “no, that’s not okay. If I’m told I’m spending my money on a car, and it’s really a stock option, even if that stock option makes me money, I’m not okay being lied to.” And that is my theoretical point about why the “it’s good for you” argument doesn’t work for me.

Now it’s, well the big one was the real one so it doesn’t matter. And I agree. Because as I pointed out from the very beginning, the St. George wedding was the real one. 

9 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I think I’m missing what the lie is. 

And we are back to the point I originally made, which is that the big St. George wedding wasn’t a lie because it was the official one.

My answers about this have ALL been theoretical or factual about the ceremony, because I don’t care if the wedding was real or not. It’s not my opinion because I have no dog in this fight. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by BlackberryJam

[Cocoa Puff]

BELIEVE BLACK WOMEN! 

That is my last two cents on the whole Harry and Meghan interview and this she's lying/acting/she knew what she was getting into/She bamboozled him 

Just say you hate Black women and if Meghan were white NONE of this would be an issue. 

I still felt the interview was great since we hadn't really heard from them since that interview they did after the engagement announcement that was ripped to shreds and people thought that they were faking their affections and whatnot.

I have seen a lot of comment from people on social media and this one tictok post, really gave me some food of thought on the interview and the whole thing.

The person stated that they felt like Harry was the one who trapped meghan and bamboozled her because he wanted out of the family/firm and how Meghan who was a successful actress, and was rising her star a little bit more with the things that she was involved with before she met and married Harry, and now she's "trapped" with 2 kid's and really no discernible skills that we know of other than being former military.

And when I saw that I was like wow that has a little grain of salt to it. 

But I'm gonna check out on this thread because there is seemingly a circle argument going on about their little wedding for them and if that was legal and the finances and if Archie deserved the title or not or who doesn't have a title and that's why Archie doesn't have a title... 

 

 

[kieyra]

1 minute ago, BlackberryJam said:

And we are back to the point I originally made, which is that the big St. George wedding wasn’t a lie because it was the official one.

For what it’s worth, I don’t feel like one ceremony has to be realer or truthier than another in the first place. Maybe that’s my whole disconnect with the wedding subplot. 

[BlackberryJam]

2 minutes ago, kieyra said:

For what it’s worth, I don’t feel like one ceremony has to be realer or truthier than another in the first place. Maybe that’s my whole disconnect with the wedding subplot. 

I don’t think the issue is realer or truthier for those that paid for it, but rather which one was legal, as that is a clear, definite, definable and factual issue. 

Emotional binding is different for everyone and can happen before a wedding, before a proposal, in whatever ceremonial moment the couple wants. 

[susannah]

This is quite an interesting conversation. I personally really like Meghan, I think she is a strong, lovely and caring woman, and I really like her and Harry together. I love how he loves and supports her. I absolutely think she felt trapped in an insane environment just like Diana was, only instead, it was her husband that was helping torture her. I know that Diana developed some emotional issues and made some big parenting mistakes as a result, looking for comfort and validation from her children, putting that burden on them, but I know that she loved them. Looking at Charles' behavior during their marriage, how he was treating their mother, can the same be said? I didn't know that the boys were forced to walk in the funeral cortege, and that was every kind of wrong. Why didn't Charles intervene?  I also know the paps were not very nice to Catherine, and BTW, I thought it very rude of Oprah to refer to her as Kate Middleton, since she is married and that's not her name now, with them saying she was just hanging on to William, hoping to marry a prince, etc, and took photos of her in a private situation with William, by a pool, with her top off. But nothing like I have now heard Meghan has gotten, and I can't imagine how terribly hurtful it is, Have also heard really hostile comments in news forums here in US, and even in this one, some people think they know exactly what Meghan felt at any given time and that she is lying about everything. I can't imagine why people would be so hateful to someone they don't even know.

But the question I have is, when Meghan was talking about being in that dark place, wanting to hurt herself, they showed the picture of them at that event, with her in the lovely sparkly gown, she was clearly pregnant! No one has said a word about the fact that if she hurt herself, she also would have hurt the baby. Am I mistaken?

[susannah]

4 hours ago, Bliss said:

As soon as I read any post/article/comment that Meghan is ALL bad (pick your adjective), I stop reading. as it is obviously a "hater" thing. Life is too short for wasting time on crap nasty opinions. Besides, I believe in karma (eventually the haters will reap what they've sown).

I don't know the woman at all; however, I've read enough about her to know she's intelligent, compassionate, funny, and all sorts of other 'adjectives'. I give her kudos for the work she does, especially empowering other women, and the fact that she summons the courage to use her powerful voice. I admire women (and men) who take a stand for what they believe in, and share from the heart. This interview is the first time I've heard HER speak about what she's gone through the past few years. I don't know anyone who could have so many lies spread about them for such a long period of time without speaking out. Can you imagine what that is like?

She didn't need to marry a prince - she was independently wealthy. Yes, she's an actress and I'm sure that affects opinions about her. I certainly don't think just because someone is trained to 'act', that means they're constantly 'on'. Nobody could sustain that for very long. I've always thought that the best actors are the people who can suspend my disbelief, usually because they're so in touch with their emotions. (I've never understood how they can do bedroom scenes when they aren't actually in love with their partner... just sayin.)

I haven't seen a single episode of Suits. My friends told me Meghan plays a whiner in the show. Just their opinion. Perhaps people are collapsing that image of the role she played with who she actually is? Think of what's-his-name (Anthony Hopkins?) in Silence of the Lambs... well, maybe cancel that thought. Ick.

All you have to look at is how she is with her animals, her son, her husband, her mom, her friends, other people's children, etc., to see the love she exudes. Even P Morgan thought she was lovely and delightful until she "rejected" him. When people who've worked with her for 10 years say that she's a wonderful woman, brilliant, etc., (and they're not paid for their testimony), I tend to give that sort of judgment more weight. They actually KNOW her. They've seen her at her best and probably at her worst, and as we all know, humans swing both ways. None of us are perfect (my hubby may disagree) and yet we are all perfect in how we mirror others, what we bring out in others. So, if someone sees the ugly in her, perhaps that's because they need to take a look at their own ugly. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who think they know it all. Because they are never wrong, they are firmly entrenched in their media-driven opinions, they believe every bit of gossip they hear or read, they prefer to be in bed with drama rather than the truth, or they're friends with P Morgan. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Noone is entitled to bullying another soul, even if anonymously. (hint: karma)

My sincere sympathies to those who are hurt by the media's contrivances, bad press, and hateful reactions. Sometimes, all you can do is pull up your big girl pants and move forward. Leave the ickies in your dust! What's that expression? Success is the best revenge. Yes!

Here's hoping Harry, Meghan, Archie and baby girl (I'm calling her Princess LOL) will find enough peace and harmony to live a purposeful life and make a positive contribution to our very sick world. We need more GOOD-hearted people who want to support others, not destroy them.

I want to like this 1000 times!  Well WELL said.

[izabella]

 

47 minutes ago, susannah said:

But the question I have is, when Meghan was talking about being in that dark place, wanting to hurt herself, they showed the picture of them at that event, with her in the lovely sparkly gown, she was clearly pregnant! No one has said a word about the fact that if she hurt herself, she also would have hurt the baby. Am I mistaken?

I wondered about the tiimeline of it all when I saw that picture, too.  They did say they were told before Archie was born that he would not be getting titles or security, so that was  a big added stressor.  But no one spelled out that she was having suicidal thoughts while pregnant.

Thank you for the information and the links, @Umbelina!

Edited March 14, 2021 by izabella

[Enero]

59 minutes ago, susannah said:

But the question I have is, when Meghan was talking about being in that dark place, wanting to hurt herself, they showed the picture of them at that event, with her in the lovely sparkly gown, she was clearly pregnant! No one has said a word about the fact that if she hurt herself, she also would have hurt the baby. Am I mistaken?

I thought it was pretty clear from the interview that she was very heavily pregnant when close to suicide. She stated in the interview that before the event where she wore the sparkly dress, she’d just told Harry that she was suicidal and could not be left alone. Hence why she attended the event even though she was an emotional mess. She stated that during that event Harry was holding her hand so tight that his knuckles were white and that every time the lights came on she had to pull herself together because she was crying throughout. So yes, if she’d acted on those suicidal thoughts at that time it would’ve also resulted in the death of their baby. Which as you’ve stated no one has pointed out.

Additionally, Harry mentioned how even after having the baby she was still an emotional wreck as he’d come home to her  crying while breastfeeding Archie. This was all no doubt a combination of post pregnancy hormones along with the pressure of all that she was going through. 

Like someone else stated, I wish Oprah had asked Meghan if she was eventually able to get therapy or did escaping that toxic environment remove most of the pressure that was causing the suicidal thoughts and thus she was able to heal without getting outside help, though I find the latter scenario less likely considering how deep her depression went. 

[WinnieWinkle]

Prince Harry And Meghan Markle’s Wedding Choir Releases Their Own Statement After False Stories

This article just speaks to the whole issue of the tabloids making up utter crap and lying and lying and lying.  They won't be happy until they've hounded Meghan to death or at least another miscarriage.

[chocolatine]

4 hours ago, carolinagirl81 said:

BELIEVE BLACK WOMEN! 

It's important to use a healthy dose of skepticism as well as factual knowledge to analyze anything any public figure says. Meghan, as well as Harry, has said several things that were inconsistent and misleading. She doesn't have immunity from being called out for that just because of her race or gender.

3 hours ago, susannah said:

But the question I have is, when Meghan was talking about being in that dark place, wanting to hurt herself, they showed the picture of them at that event, with her in the lovely sparkly gown, she was clearly pregnant! No one has said a word about the fact that if she hurt herself, she also would have hurt the baby. Am I mistaken?

That begs the question, could Meghan have suffered from prenatal depression? It's not as common as postpartum depression, but can be very severe (including suicidal ideation). Meghan made it sound like her depression was solely due to how she was treated by the media and the lack of support from the palace, but there could have been other factors at play.

Edited March 14, 2021 by chocolatine

[Trini]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

From what I've seen, most tabloids/comments are using it more as proof that Meghan is a liar.  Not Harry, who also talked about it, just Meghan.

...

 

4 hours ago, Kromm said:

But that's the rub.  They're endlessly, selectively blamed (or rather, the evil mixed race woman usually is) no matter how things shake out. 

...

And like most of the "inaccurate statements" in the Interview, it seems to boil down to nitpicking around the edges of what she said, usually conveniently forgetting the white guy sitting next to her said something similar, and extrapolating.  She mentions an earlier ceremony, and it becomes necessary to use it as a lever to call her a liar. Only the NICER interpretations call it a half truth. 

...

 

It's just ridiculous. Harry is an entire grown man, a husband and partner, a smeggin' Prince right there making his own statements as well as supporting Meghan, but she's the one that gets blamed for everything? As if he has no power of his own - one of the most priveleged men on the planet.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Trini
gah! dropped word

[statsgirl]

20 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Prince Harry And Meghan Markle’s Wedding Choir Releases Their Own Statement After False Stories

Add The Sunday Times and TMZ to those who make up stuff about Meghan and Harry to make them look bad.

I'm glad that Oprah didn't ask if Meghan had therapy after they left because that's a private matter and shouldn't be on TV unless they disclose first. What is important is that Meghan asked for help from HR and also the Palace's private resources and was turned down both times.

I don't care if iy was the first wedding that was legal or the second one. The fact that they had a small private wedding before the big public one tells me that they really wanted a small ceremony but agreed to the spectacle because that's part of the job. If they really wanted the big one, there was no need to have a small one first.

I have the feeling that we have little idea of  the compromises they made, as Harry said, including feeling suicidal and putting on a sparkly dress and a sparkly smile and hiding everything deep down.

[susannah]

32 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

 

That begs the question, could Meghan have suffered from prenatal depression? It's not as common as postpartum depression, but can be very severe (including suicidal ideation). Meghan made it sound like her depression was solely due to how she was treated by the media and the lack of support from the palace, but there could have been other factors at play.

I hadn't heard of prenatal depression but it sounds completely possible that her depression was caused by that, or made much worse by that. It certainly could have made her more unable to deal with all the external pressures. Even Mary Sunshine would be depressed by all of that.

[BlackberryJam]

50 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Prince Harry And Meghan Markle’s Wedding Choir Releases Their Own Statement After False Stories

This article just speaks to the whole issue of the tabloids making up utter crap and lying and lying and lying.  They won't be happy until they've hounded Meghan to death or at least another miscarriage.

The story about the choir didn’t originate from a tabloid. It came from Finding Freedom.

The couple shot down almost a dozen previous versions of the song that the choir leader, Karen Gibson, had prepared. Then Prince Charles, who recommended much of the musical accompaniment to Harry and Meghan, arranged for Gibson, five choir members, and a keyboardist to play in person at Kensington Palace. “The version everyone heard was the twelfth version, and even now I don’t know if it was exactly what they wanted since we had simply run out of time,” Karen said after the wedding. “At the time I didn’t understand why they kept saying no, but of course they were right. The version they got was pure. And it absolutely suited the style of the wedding.”

The tabloids make up plenty of stuff, but this particular story blossomed from Omid Scobie and Carol Durand. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by BlackberryJam
To clarify because I’m sure the tabs ran with it.

[BlackberryJam]

8 hours ago, Kromm said:

This Entertainment Tonight piece has some details I haven't seen elsewhere, as well as a "Royal Expert", who for a change, is pro-Meghan. 

 

EDIT - Oh, it's this same Omid fellow. And I hadn't yet seen the most recent posts talking about him, and that email. 

Since I realized I had this on Kindle, here is what Omid wrote about the pre-wedding/tears/dress fitting situation:

A source, who was at the mid-May fitting and has never discussed what really happened until this book, said that stories about tears have been “puzzling” to those who were present. “Some of the children weren’t cooperating, and there was a lot going on. Everyone tried to help where they could, but it’s never easy with kids at fittings. There were no tears from anyone. And in the end, the fitting was fine. Kate and Meghan were both a little stressed but professionals in the room, and there were other people there, including Clare [Waight Keller], Melissa, and two Givenchy assistants.”

I don’t know what is true. Meghan stressed about the wedding. Kate three weeks post partum. I wouldn’t have been surprised if they both were sobbing pretty regularly. 

[Bliss]

34 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

It's important to use a healthy does of skepticism as well as factual knowledge to analyze anything any public figure says. Meghan, as well as Harry, has said several things that were inconsistent and misleading. She doesn't have immunity from being called out for that just because of her race or gender.

That begs the question, could Meghan have suffered from prenatal depression? It's not as common as postpartum depression, but can be very severe (including suicidal ideation). Meghan made it sound like her depression was solely due to how she was treated by the media and the lack of support from the palace, but there could have been other factors at play.

Curious about your assertion: "Meghan, as well as Harry, has said several things that were inconsistent and misleading."

Will you be so kind to explain or give examples of these several things? (I don't read rag mags or tabloids... and I don't remember hearing them saying any one thing, let alone several, that gave my spidey senses the urge to think, "wow, that's inconsistent/misleading" so I'm naturally curious what I've missed!)

Prenatal depression? Definitely a possibility. It's more common than people think... and my knowledge of it is spotty at best. What I do know is that the women suffering are often what we'd expect: poor, unhealthy women who do not have full expression (they feel 'helpless') and often they are lacking support either financial or emotional. e.g., pregnancies resulting from rape are rampant for depression. Meghan certain falls into the "not having full expression" category, being silenced by the Firm. However, Meghan was financially secure, healthy (I bet she's taught Harry a lot about good food), married to the love of her life (I think she said soulmate, but not sure) and expecting a baby that she wanted very much. I tend to think that any prenatal depression she experienced was due to the unbelievable media harassment which went on and on and on and on, with no correction by the Firm. This woman deserves a sincere apology from sooooooooo many people who've gained in some way at her expense.

Show me any woman who could endure that amount of extreme bullying without coming to the decision that not being alive anymore was the only answer. Meghan not only admitted her state to her husband, and then to the Firm's HR; she admitted it to the whole world during the interview. She's fierce. She had nothing to gain from that courageous admission, other than to demonstrate how being vulnerable isn't something that should be condemned. (Brene Brown speaks eloquently about vulnerability... e.g., )

https://images.app.goo.gl/SeWP1hrX4FdLqBvy6

https://images.app.goo.gl/F4gQdL5ajNatvM1PA

The fact that Meghan asked for help and was denied should be a punishable crime IMO.

[Crs97]

2 hours ago, Enero said:

  3 hours ago, susannah said:

But the question I have is, when Meghan was talking about being in that dark place, wanting to hurt herself, they showed the picture of them at that event, with her in the lovely sparkly gown, she was clearly pregnant! No one has said a word about the fact that if she hurt herself, she also would have hurt the baby. Am I mistaken?

It reminds me of Diana saying she threw herself down the stairs while pregnant with William.  No one ever mentioned the baby in that story either, which amazes me.

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, Bliss said:

Curious about your assertion: "Meghan, as well as Harry, has said several things that were inconsistent and misleading."

Will you be so kind to explain or give examples of these several things?

1. The allegation that Charles abruptly and unexpectedly withdrew funding after their exit from their RF - Harry and Meghan said in their own announcement in early 2020 that they were going to be financially independent, so what they said in the interview is a direct contradiction to their earlier statement.

2. The allegation that Archie was singled out to not receive a prince title because of his race - no children of Harry's would have received a prince/princess title before Charles became king, because they are not in the direct line of succession. This would have also been the case if Harry had married a white woman.

3. The insinuation that the RF is in full control of what the British press writes about them and chooses which members to "sacrifice." Sure, there are deals and negotiations that happen, but there have been many negative and unflattering stories published over the decades about every member of the RF (including Charles, Philip, Catherine, Harry, etc.), so obviously they don't have as much power to manipulate the media as Meghan and Harry insinuated.

There were other, minor things that sounded implausible, e.g. that she allegedly "wept" multiple times during a public event, and yet none of the pictures of her taken at that event show any signs that she had been crying - the press would surely have had a field day with such a picture if it existed.

1 hour ago, Bliss said:

Show me any woman who could endure that amount of extreme bullying without coming to the decision that not being alive anymore was the only answer.

There was no "extreme bullying." Meghan found herself in an extraordinarily privileged position that also carried with it rigid expectations and extreme public scrutiny. She realized that she was not happy in that environment and removed herself from it, with full support from her husband and friends. Good for her. There are millions of women in the world who have to endure much worse on a daily basis, and don't have the resources to get away from it all. Meghan is not a victim.

Edited March 14, 2021 by chocolatine

[Hiyo]

Have Meghan and Harry moved the monarchy closer towards its end? If only.

[Cocoa Puff]

2 hours ago, chocolatine said:

It's important to use a healthy dose of skepticism as well as factual knowledge to analyze anything any public figure says. Meghan, as well as Harry, has said several things that were inconsistent and misleading. She doesn't have immunity from being called out for that just because of her race or gender.

As a Black woman we are the most undervalued and disrespected race. So yes Meghan does get some "immunity" from being called out. Because as a Black woman the racism she has had to endure from inside "the firm" and outside it I believe her. That family is ALL about the keeping the blood "pure" and i am sure the "one drop rule" was in FULL effect when whoever asked about how dark Archie's skin tone would be. 

 

[susannah]

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

1. The allegation that Charles abruptly and unexpectedly withdrew funding after their exit from their RF - Harry and Meghan said in their own announcement in early 2020 that they were going to be financially independent, so what they said in the interview is a direct contradiction to their earlier statement.

2. The allegation that Archie was singled out to not receive a prince title because of his race - no children of Harry's would have received a prince/princess title before Charles became king, because they are not in the direct line of succession. This would have also been the case if Harry had married a white woman.

3. The insinuation that the RF is in full control of what the British press writes about them and chooses which members to "sacrifice." Sure, there are deals and negotiations that happen, but there have been many negative and unflattering stories published over the decades about every member of the RF (including Charles, Philip, Catherine, Harry, etc.), so obviously they don't have as much power to manipulate the media as Meghan and Harry insinuated.

There were other, minor things that sounded implausible, e.g. that she allegedly "wept" multiple times during a public event, and yet none of the pictures of her taken at that event show any signs that she had been crying - the press would surely have had a field day with such a picture if it existed.

There was no "extreme bullying." Meghan found herself in an extraordinarily privileged position that also carried with it rigid expectations and extreme public scrutiny. She realized that she was not happy in that environment and removed herself from it, with full support from her husband and friends. Good for her. There are millions of women in the world who have to endure much worse on a daily basis, and don't have the resources to get away from it all. Meghan is not a victim.

I don't agree that anyone can know how Meghan felt about anything. Also, there are definitely women who "have it worse," in some ways, but that doesn't change or negate Megan's pain. Having privilege doesn't eliminate anyone's pain.

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

1. The allegation that Charles abruptly and unexpectedly withdrew funding after their exit from their RF - Harry and Meghan said in their own announcement in early 2020 that they were going to be financially independent, so what they said in the interview is a direct contradiction to their earlier statement.

 Harry said this on January 8th (which, IMO is pretty clear that they wished to step back, but to continue to be working royals as well:

"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen," the caption read. "We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honor our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages." 

"This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity." 

Then the Queen issued this on January 18th:  

As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties.  

With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.

The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.

Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.

This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.

(me again, so it's unclear to me that this is a lie.  Also, it's difficult to discover the date Charles removed financial support, I don't see why Harry would lie about that, and being blindsided by that. Also, I don't believe they ever received public funds, I think that was all Charles, for both of his sons and their families.)

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

2. The allegation that Archie was singled out to not receive a prince title because of his race - no children of Harry's would have received a prince/princess title before Charles became king, because they are not in the direct line of succession. This would have also been the case if Harry had married a white woman.

The children of William would be in the same boat, except perhaps for George, yet somehow, the palace managed to make Charlotte and Louis princess and prince, leaving only one grandchild of the future King Charles without a title, and more importantly, without security.

 

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

3. The insinuation that the RF is in full control of what the British press writes about them and chooses which members to "sacrifice." Sure, there are deals and negotiations that happen, but there have been many negative and unflattering stories published over the decades about every member of the RF (including Charles, Philip, Catherine, Harry, etc.), so obviously they don't have as much power to manipulate the media as Meghan and Harry insinuated.

It's tit for tat, and honestly that's been known and obvious for a long time.  It's detailed in several postings in this thread as well.  They get access if they lay off the senior royals and the Queen's favorite, Andrew.

Unflattering stories certainly existed, but after Harry and Meghan married, the "unflattering" stories were all (or very nearly all) about THEM.  Also, they were endless, daily attacks on them, never refuted or challenged by the palace.  

 

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

There was no "extreme bullying." Meghan found herself in an extraordinarily privileged position that also carried with it rigid expectations and extreme public scrutiny. She realized that she was not happy in that environment and removed herself from it, with full support from her husband and friends. Good for her. There are millions of women in the world who have to endure much worse on a daily basis, and don't have the resources to get away from it all. Meghan is not a victim.

Privilege doesn't mean no bullying though.  The things Meghan complained about were the press lies going unchallenged, her child being Charles' only grandchild to not receive a title, and thus security protection, even though that baby was getting death threats and horrific racial hatred.  

You can be privileged and still wronged, the two don't equate, especially when the palace permitted that, while protecting Andrew, Charles, William, Kate, Camilla, and Kate's children from the daily vicious slander and hate that Meghan and Archie endured.

That said, I think it took an American to show Harry that indeed, this way of living was complete insanity, and unhealthy.  Harry wanted to keep ties, to split his time, continue with his patronages, and Meghan with hers, but just to get out of England and away from the unchecked nasty press for 6 months of the year.  Harry had known no other kind of life, but his wife had.  When fitting into his became impossible and unhappy for both of them, they decided to try another way.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Umbelina
clarified

[chocolatine]

15 minutes ago, susannah said:

I don't agree that anyone can know how Meghan felt about anything. Also, there are definitely women who "have it worse," in some ways, but that doesn't change or negate Megan's pain. Having privilege doesn't eliminate anyone's pain.

I wasn't speculating on how Meghan felt about anything, I was just stating facts that refute several of the claims and allegations she and Harry made in the interview. I also didn't say that Meghan wasn't in pain. Everyone has pain, that's part of being human. I just see Meghan's situation as having been in the wrong environment for her personality and sensibilities, not as someone who was victimized.