Small Talk: The Prayer Closet

[rue721]

Thanks for all the good thoughts/prayers/vibes yesterday! 🥰
 

I think they really helped, because the exam went well... although with these exams, things can always go either way! I find out late next week whether I passed or not🤞

[doodlebug]

On 2/24/2021 at 9:32 PM, Oldernowiser said:

Anyone else absolutely over all of the gushing, melodramatic coverage of Tiger Woods having yet another car accident? Yes, he’s a public figure, yes he’s a good golfer, yes it’s too bad he got hurt...again...but good grief they’re acting like he is a combination of Jesus Christ and Princess Diana. Also, he’s NOT DEAD. Also, not that great a guy. But I have read half a dozen hushed, reverential articles today on multiple news sites that would be over the top if they were eulogies. And he’s NOT DEAD.

Honestly, the way we revere sports figures in this country is seriously messed up.

Even worse was the reverential coverage given to the death of admitted rapist, Kobe Bryant.  He was a terrific basketball player, apparently a pretty good father.  His worth as a husband is debatable, but his wife stayed although she did get a multimillion $ ring out of it.  But a good person, worthy of emulation and praise?  Not in my book.

It is certainly tragic that he died so senselessly and so young, but there were multiple other people on that chopper including several kids, including his  young daughter who were far more worthy of memorialization than Kobe.

[doodlebug]

On 3/7/2021 at 12:17 AM, Growsonwalls said:

Ok so here's a question: I have a love-hate relationship with tights. I sort of hate them but I also love them because I like to wear skirts sometimes in colder weather and tights make that possible.

So everyone is talking about sheertex "unbreakable" tights. Anyone get them and know if they live up to the name? Also, their nude colored tights -- are they more like thick dance tights or like regular hose? They cost a lot but I wonder if they're worth just plunking down the money.

I don't know about Sheertex, but I have found Snag tights, made in the UK to be durable and fit better than most.  I have short legs and most tights bag around my ankles, but not Snag, they fit properly.

[Zella]

Arkansas finally opened the last stage of 1B for vaccines, so I was able to get an appointment for the first shot through pharmacy B next week. But my boss just contacted all of us to let us know the library staff can all get shots this Friday at pharmacy A! The rolling waitlist finally paid off! 

[Oldernowiser]

5 minutes ago, Zella said:

Arkansas finally opened the last stage of 1B for vaccines, so I was able to get an appointment for the first shot through pharmacy B next week. But my boss just contacted all of us to let us know the library staff can all get shots this Friday at pharmacy A! The rolling waitlist finally paid off! 

Hooray!!!

[Zella]

They also finally started a statewide hotline for people to get appointments. I didn't need it, but I know a lot of Arkansans who could benefit from it.

[doodlebug]

18 hours ago, iwantcookies said:

@doodlebug , @Barb23 check in when you can! Hope you are okay!

I'm fine, back at work after spending a week in Key West and very little time online.

[Oldernowiser]

Just now, doodlebug said:

I'm fine, back at work after spending a week in Key West and very little time online.

So glad you had some time away in some place beautiful! 
 

Also...a little jealous, NGL. 

[SunnyBeBe]

Omg, I relive my memories from The Keys last Jan......what fun.  I shall return though....eventually.   Or, I may do something entirely different.  Maybe, the west coast this time.   It’s been 30 years since I was on CA.  

[ozziemom]

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

Thanks for all the good thoughts/prayers/vibes yesterday! 🥰
 

I think they really helped, because the exam went well... although with these exams, things can always go either way! I find out late next week whether I passed or not🤞

As someone who took the CPA exam back in ancient times, I must admit to being jealous of the way the exam is administered now. Much better to get the results quickly and to not have to spend three days sweating out paper tests, lol.

I will keep my fingers crossed for you too, but it sounds like you have a handle on it!

[Absolom]

2 hours ago, SMama said:

Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems security for Archie was somehow tied to him being a prince. It doesn’t make sense to me because Ann’s children held no titles and had protection. I’d be concerned for my child as well, screw the title and protect my kids. It makes Archie and his unborn sister lesser than their cousins. That is shitty.

It is confusing isn't it?  Archie isn't in position to be a prince, but wasn't it announced that Harry and Meghan didn't want him to have any titles?  Security for Ann's kids wouldn't be the issue.  Security for her grandchildren would be the equivalency.  They do have to draw a line somewhere.  Security can't be provided by the crown for every relative.  You'd think it might be tied to royal duties.  Those going in public to represent the crown should have security at least for the public duties.

[ozziemom]

1 minute ago, Absolom said:

It is confusing isn't it?  Archie isn't in position to be a prince, but wasn't it announced that Harry and Meghan didn't want him to have any titles?  Security for Ann's kids wouldn't be the issue.  Security for her grandchildren would be the equivalency.  They do have to draw a line somewhere.  Security can't be provided by the crown for every relative.  You'd think it might be tied to royal duties.  Those going in public to represent the crown should have security at least for the public duties.

Kind of like security here in US by Secret Service for president and his extended family. Where do you draw the line? 

There were a couple things said by Meghan that were contradictory especially when referring to The Institution versus Family versus The Firm. But I would not be surprised at all that there was racism in the world of the royals. Racism is everywhere and there is still a class system in the UK that is hard for us as Americans to understand. 

[SunnyBeBe]

I’ve read some fact checking from the interview. Apparently, some things are off.  

[Ohiopirate02]

23 minutes ago, Absolom said:

It is confusing isn't it?  Archie isn't in position to be a prince, but wasn't it announced that Harry and Meghan didn't want him to have any titles?  Security for Ann's kids wouldn't be the issue.  Security for her grandchildren would be the equivalency.  They do have to draw a line somewhere.  Security can't be provided by the crown for every relative.  You'd think it might be tied to royal duties.  Those going in public to represent the crown should have security at least for the public duties.

Yes it was announced that Harry and Meghan did not want Archie to have any titles, but that was not the whole truth if not a flat out lie.  

[QuinnInND]

4 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I’ve read some fact checking from the interview. Apparently, some things are off.  

Which things, particularly? 

[MargeGunderson]

9 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I’ve read some fact checking from the interview. Apparently, some things are off.  

And who is doing this fact checking? And against what? If it’s contradictory to what is put out by the palace, I do wonder why we are supposed to take the palace’s word for it. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by MargeGunderson
Clarify that I meant why are we supposed to trust the palace

[doodlebug]

19 minutes ago, Absolom said:

It is confusing isn't it?  Archie isn't in position to be a prince, but wasn't it announced that Harry and Meghan didn't want him to have any titles?  Security for Ann's kids wouldn't be the issue.  Security for her grandchildren would be the equivalency.  They do have to draw a line somewhere.  Security can't be provided by the crown for every relative.  You'd think it might be tied to royal duties.  Those going in public to represent the crown should have security at least for the public duties.

In general, the children and grandchildren of the reigning monarch are Princes and Princesses.  So, technically, Archie would be named a Prince when Charles becomes king.  This goes along with what happened with Charles and Andrew's kids.  Princess Anne's children could not receive titles because her husband, their father, declined a title.  In that case, we were told that Mark Phillips, the father, didn't want a title because he had no intention of becoming a working royal (he trained horses and was an equestrian as well as an officer in the Army.)  At the time Sophie and Edward married, we were told that their kids would not be given titles other than those consistent with the children of an Earl, the title Edward received when he married.  

While there is all of this talk about who wanted a title and who didn't; it is ultimately up to the reigning monarch to bestow them.  It is well known that, over the years, Elizabeth has consulted Charles on these matters, since he is her successor and this stuff is going to matter more once he is king.  He has repeatedly talked about streamlining the monarchy and was known to have opposed Andrew's girls, Beatrice and Eugenie, from getting the title of princess; but Andrew is the Queen's favorite kid (ugh!) and he wanted it, so it happened.  We also know that about 10 years ago, Andrew was lobbying for his daughters to be named working royals so they could be employed by the Crown and receive a salary from that rather than having to get outside jobs, etc.  Charles hit the roof and it didn't happen.  He also insisted that, as non-working royals, Andrew's daughters didn't need security from the Crown.  Andrew pays for bodyguards for them as needed (or his mother does since she is his sole source of income).

While we were told Edward and Sophie refused titles for their kids; it could well be that that was a way of phrasing it politely.  Ultimately, it was the Queen's decision and, if she didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't matter what they want.  It is fairly well known that Charles was openly opposed to anyone's kids but his receiving titles.

Technically, only those directly in line to the throne get titles at birth which means Charles (and his siblings back in the day), William (and Harry at birth) and then George.  Catherine and William's other kids were given the titles of Prince and Princess by a special order of the Queen called a letters patent.  Obviously, no such order was sent for Archie and, although the Palace announced that it was Harry and Meghan's decision; it was pretty clear from their interview that they were not asked for their opinion and they would've wanted a title for their son had it been up to them.

As far as security for Archie, he is in a totally different category than any of the other royal kids because there have been DEATH threats issued for him and his mother.  The Palace has received huge numbers of racist correspondence decrying the sullying of the royal blood and asserting that this needs to  be rectified.  A little kid who has people who specifically want to kill him just for existing needs protection.  And, yet, Prince Charles, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, refused to pay for it.  When they moved to the US, Charles cut Harry and Meghan and Archie off financially.  Prior to that, he had been supporting Harry to the tune of about $7 million a year, even prior to his marriage.  They had been getting security from the British government as working royals and this was about to end when they went to California.  Since the death threats were not stopping, Harry and Meghan rightfully felt that they and their child still needed security and I believe Harry thought his father would pick up the slack.  Instead, he cut  him off completely and refused to take his calls which is why Tyler Perry stepped in and let them stay at his mansion and use his security team and Harry said he had to use money he'd inherited from Diana until they could scramble and get an income source together.

[BitterApple]

I take everything Harry and Meghan said with a giant grain of salt. If the family is so awful, why not surrender the Duke and Duchess titles and be done with it? The entire interview read like a victim statement. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. 

 

[Suzn]

2 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Thanks @Suzn- its been a year. What a "interesting" year it has been in so many ways. 

 

I am burning a nice candle- green tea and aloe from Bath and Body Works. I find it soothing. Cosmo is napping, and I should be working (work is a nice distraction).

That does sound soothing.  Take care of yourself...as much as you take care of others. 😊

[doodlebug]

2 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I take everything Harry and Meghan said with a giant grain of salt. If the family is so awful, why not surrender the Duke and Duchess titles and be done with it? The entire interview read like a victim statement. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. 

 

I don't doubt that they spun a bit to put themselves in the best light; but a lot of what they said had a ring of truth to it as far as the royal family and those who run the institution are concerned.  At this point, already cut off financially, estranged from his father and brother to some degree; what would Harry or Meghan gain from giving this interview?  It surely didn't help their relationship with the family, it isn't going to make them more popular or cause the British public to clamor for their return.  And, from what we've seen over the years; there is reason to believe that a lot of what they say is true, at least from their point of view.  

I've got no problem believing that when Meghan was depressed and wanted a break and some help, she was told to put on a happy face and keep going because it would look bad for the family if she admitted to mental health issues.  That is something that has happened before, again and again.  

[SunnyBeBe]

Can I get some input on something?  My question is about another site. Not here.  Another poster/member and I exchanged comments about something on the boards. ( This is a supportive thing for diabetics, information, support, et.  No bio details poster just basic stuff, username, no photos, et.) Later, this certain guy, I’ll call Dan, sent me some innocent PMs.  Then, he wished me Happy Valentine’s Day, which I got 2 weeks late. I don’t frequent the site that often.  Then, today, I see he sent me 3 PMs, including a smiley face and xxoxxo  No messages, just symbols.  So, I haven’t responded. I’m not sure how this thing is interpreted online.  I suppose it’s harmless.....?

Edited March 9, 2021 by SunnyBeBe

[Zella]

12 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Can I get some input on something?  My question is about another site. Not here.  Another poster/member and I exchanged comments about something on the boards. ( This is a supportive thing for diabetics, information, support, et.  No bio details poster just basic stuff, username, no photos, et.) Later, this certain guy, I’ll call Dan, sent me some innocent PMs.  Then, he wished me Happy Valentine’s Day, which I got 2 weeks late. I don’t frequent the site that often.  Then, today, I see he sent me 3 PMs, including a smiley face and xxoxxo  No messages, just symbols.  So, I haven’t responded. I’m not sure how this thing is interpreted online.  I suppose it’s harmless.....?

He's flirting--or thinks that's what he is doing. I've learned the hard way that guys on online forums often misinterpret friendly conversation as something else. (Especially when they're a bunch of lonely drunks on history forums. 🙄) I'd recommend ignoring his PMs and maybe putting him on ignore if he persists. 

[kieyra]

14 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Can I get some input on something?  My question is about another site. Not here.  Another poster/member and I exchanged comments about something on the boards. ( This is a supportive thing for diabetics, information, support, et.  No bio details poster just basic stuff, username, no photos, et.) Later, this certain guy, I’ll call Dan, sent me some innocent PMs.  Then, he wished me Happy Valentine’s Day, which I got 2 weeks late. I don’t frequent the site that often.  Then, today, I see he sent me 3 PMs, including a smiley face and xxoxxo  No messages, just symbols.  So, I haven’t responded. I’m not sure how this thing is interpreted online.  I suppose it’s harmless.....?

I think this probably depends on what you’re comfortable with. If it gets “weird“ feeling you can ignore/block the user—and if gets harassing or includes spam links you can report the individual PMs to the mods. 

(Speaking personally, it sounds a little odd, especially 3 in one day, but I’m a huge introvert. 🙂)

[DangerousMinds]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

Arkansas finally opened the last stage of 1B for vaccines, so I was able to get an appointment for the first shot through pharmacy B next week. But my boss just contacted all of us to let us know the library staff can all get shots this Friday at pharmacy A! The rolling waitlist finally paid off! 

I just made my appointment for my first vaccine here in Ohio, too! Yay us!

[SunnyBeBe]

I’m not opposed to harmless flirting, if that’s all it is.  Trouble is there are some unknown variables that you have no way to know about.  

[Scarlett45]

20 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Can I get some input on something?  My question is about another site. Not here.  Another poster/member and I exchanged comments about something on the boards. ( This is a supportive thing for diabetics, information, support, et.  No bio details poster just basic stuff, username, no photos, et.) Later, this certain guy, I’ll call Dan, sent me some innocent PMs.  Then, he wished me Happy Valentine’s Day, which I got 2 weeks late. I don’t frequent the site that often.  Then, today, I see he sent me 3 PMs, including a smiley face and xxoxxo  No messages, just symbols.  So, I haven’t responded. I’m not sure how this thing is interpreted online.  I suppose it’s harmless.....?

Sounds just like flirting. If you arent interested dont respond, and if he keeps sending you stuff THEN you can take further action. But to me it just sounds like harmless flirting.

[GeeGolly]

As far as Harry, the Royals, royal lineage and all the rules that go with it, Harry is the future King's son. He is the present Queen's grandson. At birth his was third in line to the throne. Now he's 6th and Archie is 7th. But Harry is still a Prince - through birth. That's not a title he can give back. And IMO, he at least, should be worthy of protection, because Charles (& the Queen) should not value first born William's life more than second born Harry.

Harry was 12 when Diana died. He grew up hearing theories of if the Royal Family hadn't taken away Diana's security she might still be alive. The Queen and Charles both have their own money, not part of the Monarch, to spend as they wish. One might think, protecting Harry would be at the top of their list because they love him and because they don't want history repeating itself.

And the genie is out of the bottle, Meghan, Archie and the unborn baby girl (currently 8th in line) are forever part of this family, so IMO, protecting all of them should be at the top of their list.

 

 

 

[Jeeves]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

As far as Harry, the Royals, royal lineage and all the rules that go with it, Harry is the future King's son. He is the present Queen's grandson. At birth his was third in line to the throne. Now he's 6th and Archie is 7th. But Harry is still a Prince - through birth. That's not a title he can give back. And IMO, he at least, should be worthy of protection, because Charles (& the Queen) should not value first born William's life more than second born Harry.

Harry was 12 when Diana died. He grew up hearing theories of if the Royal Family hadn't taken away Diana's security she might still be alive. The Queen and Charles both have their own money, not part of the Monarch, to spend as they wish. One might think, protecting Harry would be at the top of their list because they love him and because they don't want history repeating itself.

And the genie is out of the bottle, Meghan, Archie and the unborn baby girl (currently 8th in line) are forever part of this family, so IMO, protecting all of them should be at the top of their list.

Actually, the Royal Family did not take away Diana's security. She was guarded by the Royal Protection squad (the official group who provide security for the Royal Family, I think it's a division of the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard) whenever she had the boys with her.

As to not having Royal Protection personnel for her own personal security when not with the boys, that was HER decision. She was offered continued security and rejected it, thinking the police and Royal Family were plotting against her. I think some tried to talk her out of rejecting the personal protection but she was determined. That led to several unpleasant situations when she was out and about on her own. And of course it meant that she was under the "protection" of Dodi Fayed and his family's "security" on that ill-fated final holiday. 

[GeeGolly]

2 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Actually, the Royal Family did not take away Diana's security. She was guarded by the Royal Protection squad (the official group who provide security for the Royal Family, I think it's a division of the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard) whenever she had the boys with her.

As to not having Royal Protection personnel for her own personal security when not with the boys, that was HER decision. She was offered continued security and rejected it, thinking the police and Royal Family were plotting against her. I think some tried to talk her out of rejecting the personal protection but she was determined. That led to several unpleasant situations when she was out and about on her own. And of course it meant that she was under the "protection" of Dodi Fayed and his family's "security" on that ill-fated final holiday. 

Thanks for the correction.

But Harry has still grown up with the thought if Diana did still have Royal Protection, she may well be alive.

[emma675]

SunnyBeBe, it sounds like this guy maybe read more into your exchanges on the board and is trying to strike up a more personal relationship with you. I agree with the others, I would just ignore the PMs and block him if he keeps going on with it and you're not comfortable. I feel like that with the isolation so many people have had over the last year, some read more into online conversations than are actually there or try to get overly personal with people online way too fast. It's a little sad when some are so starved for interaction, but you still have to set your own boundaries.

[Scarlett45]

1 minute ago, emma675 said:

SunnyBeBe, it sounds like this guy maybe read more into your exchanges on the board and is trying to strike up a more personal relationship with you. I agree with the others, I would just ignore the PMs and block him if he keeps going on with it and you're not comfortable. I feel like that with the isolation so many people have had over the last year, some read more into online conversations than are actually there or try to get overly personal with people online way too fast. It's a little sad when some are so starved for interaction, but you still have to set your own boundaries.

I really agree with this.

[SunnyBeBe]

Yeah.  I’m trying to figure it out. I don’t think I shared too much...idk. Maybe, it’s just my irresistible magnetism! Lol. Just kidding.  Covid has caused a lot.  I’ll take it in stride.  

[Jeeves]

50 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Thanks for the correction.

But Harry has still grown up with the thought if Diana did still have Royal Protection, she may well be alive.

Oh, I absolutely agree that she'd certainly not have died in that wreck if she'd had the RP on the job. (As does pretty much everybody except Mr. Fayed, who has spent millions of dollars pushing his awful conspiracy/murder theories - which have the happy effect of absolving his son and his employees of responsibility for the accident.)

You make a good point that Harry would have been very aware of that fact.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Jeeves

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Actually, the Royal Family did not take away Diana's security. She was guarded by the Royal Protection squad (the official group who provide security for the Royal Family, I think it's a division of the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard) whenever she had the boys with her.

As to not having Royal Protection personnel for her own personal security when not with the boys, that was HER decision. She was offered continued security and rejected it, thinking the police and Royal Family were plotting against her. I think some tried to talk her out of rejecting the personal protection but she was determined. That led to several unpleasant situations when she was out and about on her own. And of course it meant that she was under the "protection" of Dodi Fayed and his family's "security" on that ill-fated final holiday. 

Did Diana actually say that she had refused the Royal Protection or is that something that the Palace said after she died in order to shift attention away from themselves?  If there's any message I've gotten from all of this mess, it is that statements made by the Palace seemingly often reflect what  is felt to be best for the monarchy and, at least sometimes, the actual truth is distorted to make the Palace look better including shifting blame onto others.  Diana may have 'refused' the protection in the sense that it was never offered to her.  The same way Harry and Meghan 'refused' a title for their son.

Not that I would have blamed Diana for rejecting them.  Dodi Fayed's family are billionaires and she probably expected that they would provide protection in line with what she got as a royal.  No way the Royal Protection service would've allowed a drunk driver to  chauffeur her, let alone try to escape the paparazzi.

Edited March 9, 2021 by doodlebug

[Jeeves]

6 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Did Diana actually say that she had refused the Royal Protection or is that something that the Palace said after she died in order to shift attention away from themselves?  If there's any message I've gotten from all of this mess, it is that statements made by the Palace seemingly often reflect what  is felt to be best for the monarchy and, at least sometimes, the actual truth is distorted to make the Palace look better including shifting blame onto others.  Diana may have 'refused' the protection in the sense that it was never offered to her.  The same way Harry and Meghan 'refused' a title for their son.

Not that I would have blamed Diana for rejecting them.  Dodi Fayed's family are billionaires and she probably expected that they would provide protection in line with what she got as a royal.  No way the Royal Protection service would've allowed a drunk driver to  chauffeur her, let alone try to escape the paparazzi.

I went back to a couple of books and looked this up a few months ago when the subject came up elsewhere online. In Tina Brown's "Diana Chronicles," and in the memoir that her protection officer Ken Wharfe wrote, it was stated that Diana turned down the Royal Protective Service coverage for herself although it was offered to her. She was very paranoid at that time about the BRF and had become hostile to the police including the RPS group as well. She viewed the police as 'working for' the family and did not trust them. 

ETA: Of course, she couldn't refuse that protection for the boys so when they were with her she also had that protection.

It wasn't as if Diana went straight from the Royal Protective Service professionals to the Fayed family setup. That was only applicable when she was visiting or vacationing with them. I recall some ugly scenes in a foreign airport (Spain? Portugal?) when the un-protected Diana was traveling to visit friends and was mobbed by press and probably fans too. She was surprisingly unprotected most of the time after the divorce and sadly the Fayeds' form of protection turned out worst of all. I wonder if she would have reconsidered the protection thing if she'd survived that wreck.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Jeeves

[doodlebug]

3 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I went back to a couple of books and looked this up a few months ago when the subject came up elsewhere online. In Tina Brown's "Diana Chronicles," and in the memoir that her protection officer Ken Wharfe wrote, it was stated that Diana turned down the Royal Protective Service coverage for herself although it was offered to her. She was very paranoid at that time about the BRF and had become hostile to the police including the RPS group as well. She viewed the police as 'working for' the family and did not trust them. 

Of course, she couldn't refuse that protection for the boys so when they were with her she also had that protection.

Thanks for the info.  I know that Diana was very concerned about the Royal Family and what lengths might be taken to keep her quiet and/or get her out of the picture and I am sure she felt that any RPS agents assigned to her would go directly to Charles with any damning information which might jeopardize her access to her kids.  I think she wasn't completely off the rails for thinking that, either.

[Suzn]

16 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I went back to a couple of books and looked this up a few months ago when the subject came up elsewhere online. In Tina Brown's "Diana Chronicles," and in the memoir that her protection officer Ken Wharfe wrote, it was stated that Diana turned down the Royal Protective Service coverage for herself although it was offered to her. She was very paranoid at that time about the BRF and had become hostile to the police including the RPS group as well. She viewed the police as 'working for' the family and did not trust them. 

ETA: Of course, she couldn't refuse that protection for the boys so when they were with her she also had that protection.

It wasn't as if Diana went straight from the Royal Protective Service professionals to the Fayed family setup. That was only applicable when she was visiting or vacationing with them. I recall some ugly scenes in a foreign airport (Spain? Portugal?) when the un-protected Diana was traveling to visit friends and was mobbed by press and probably fans too. She was surprisingly unprotected most of the time after the divorce and sadly the Fayeds' form of protection turned out worst of all. I wonder if she would have reconsidered the protection thing if she'd survived that wreck.

It was an accident that didn't have to happen.  There was no reason to do a high speed escape from the press with a drunk at the wheel and wearing no seat belts.  The paparazzi were chasing but they had no real reason to run.  I think Harry's blaming the tabloids for Diana's death is slightly misplaced.  I'm not blaming the victim, but just pointing out that the circumstances were not straight forward with one group 100% to blame.

[Oldernowiser]

The reality is that the Royal Family is a family...but it’s also a multi-billion dollar corporation with a brand that drives the revenue. The Queen and at this point, Charles, are nominally in charge, but mostly they’re figureheads and the star performers that maintain the brand. As in most corporations, the needs of any individual are only considered in the context of how the brand and the revenue are served.

Diana’s mental health suffered under the regime, as well, to the point where she was suffering from bulimia and depression...IIRC, she threw herself down a flight of stairs. Fergie bailed on Andrew. William has said he has dealt with depression.And the UK press is notoriously savage and pounces on any crack in the facade. Meghan was divorced, American, an actress, and half Black. All of that was tabloid fodder and given how fiercely the Royal Family brand is protected, I don’t doubt she was viewed as a threat. But she was a grown woman, not a protected upper class shy girl like Diana, and I don’t think she was prepared to be treated like a wayward teen. 

It’s not all designer clothes and charity photo ops, for sure. 

[GeeGolly]

8 minutes ago, Suzn said:

It was an accident that didn't have to happen.  There was no reason to do a high speed escape from the press with a drunk at the wheel and wearing no seat belts.  The paparazzi were chasing but they had no real reason to run.  I think Harry's blaming the tabloids for Diana's death is slightly misplaced.  I'm not blaming the victim, but just pointing out that the circumstances were not straight forward with one group 100% to blame.

I agree. I think it was a perfect storm, so to speak. Years of being chased by the press, no security detail, a little game playing and sadly, a drunk driver. But had the press not been following them, they wouldn't have 'run'. And with security, they never would have gotten in the car. So I think the obnoxious press and lack of security, are a big part of what happened.

[andromeda331]

21 minutes ago, Suzn said:

It was an accident that didn't have to happen.  There was no reason to do a high speed escape from the press with a drunk at the wheel and wearing no seat belts.  The paparazzi were chasing but they had no real reason to run.  I think Harry's blaming the tabloids for Diana's death is slightly misplaced.  I'm not blaming the victim, but just pointing out that the circumstances were not straight forward with one group 100% to blame.

 

6 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I agree. I think it was a perfect storm, so to speak. Years of being chased by the press, no security detail, a little game playing and sadly, a drunk driver. But had the press not been following them, they wouldn't have 'run'. And with security, they never would have gotten in the car. So I think the obnoxious press and lack of security, are a big part of what happened.

Yes, but its not uncommon for someone to be completely convinced that the death their love one was "someone's" fault. In his mind if the press hadn't been chasing them his mother would be alive. Which maybe but her driver was drunk at the time and she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Harry's always seemed like he's never gotten over his mother's death. 

[Jeeves]

I can't remember who it was, but someone with knowledge and experience of guarding the Royals, commented on how unnecessary it was for Dodi to try to outrun or outwit the paps on that final night in Paris. Diana was used to being swarmed by the paps, none of whom wanted to hurt her. They just wanted to get photos. Annoying, yes, but not a threat to the life or safety of anyone in the car. It was the driver's attempt to outrun and "lose" the paps that set up the dangerous situation and led to his losing control and crashing. Stupid, and not necessary. And it was Dodi's stupid ignorant view of the paps as a "threat" that set all the stupidity into action.

[iwantcookies]

Once Harry and Megs use up his rumored $10 million inheritance than what? Tyler Perry isn’t going to support them forever. 

[Jeanne222]

31 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

Once Harry and Megs use up his rumored $10 million inheritance than what? Tyler Perry isn’t going to support them forever. 

I'm reading they were paid $7.5 million for the interview.  It's all over social media. 

They aren't in Tyler Perry's rental any longer.  They bought their own home.

Money  comes and money goes.

[SMama]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

I'm reading they were paid $7.5 million for the interview.  It's all over social media. 

They aren't in Tyler Perry's rental any longer.  They bought their own home.

Money  comes and money goes.

Oprah stated at the beginning of the interview they were not paid.

Harpo did sell the distribution rights to CBS for worldwide release.

[Jeanne222]

Just now, SMama said:

Oprah stated at the beginning of the interview they were not paid.

Harpo did sell the distribution rights to CBS for worldwide release.

I'm reading CBS paid them $7.5 million.  So some way they were paid.

If they have been cut off from royal money this will be a nice cushion.

[DangerousMinds]

3 hours ago, iwantcookies said:

Once Harry and Megs use up his rumored $10 million inheritance than what? Tyler Perry isn’t going to support them forever. 

You don’t like them?

[iwantcookies]

3 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

I'm reading CBS paid them $7.5 million.  So some way they were paid.

If they have been cut off from royal money this will be a nice cushion.

They are cut off financially 

[emmawoodhouse]

3 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

I'm reading CBS paid them $7.5 million.  So some way they were paid.

If they have been cut off from royal money this will be a nice cushion.

Charles cut them off when they moved to CA, so it's been about a year.

[GeeGolly]

I thought CBS paid Oprah the $7 million for the interview. With that said, it doesn't mean Harry & Meghan didn't do some backroom deal with O for a cut of the money. But as tempting as that would be, I kind of doubt it. I think H & M would know even more viewers would doubt their claims, if they thought they were paid.

[QuinnInND]

I had only heard of Meghan in passing until she started dating Harry.  I've never seen anything she'd been in as far as I know. I must be the only one who never knew she's bi racial.  All the pearl clutching about her being black, and I'm sitting here looking at her like "if you say so."  So all the hew and cry was lost on me.