Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Be right back

Neyite wrote: »

Imagine Rock-The-Boat with a load of toffs, and I'm sure I've a few who would be worse for the wear and not used to all that Bollinger and end up puking into some Earl's top hat. :pac:

Can only imagine that there must be zero craic at a Royal wedding. Everyone warned to be on their best behaviour!

ohnonotgmail

Be right back wrote: »

Can only imagine that there must be zero craic at a Royal wedding. Everyone warned to be on their best behaviour!

you don't think they have a dance circle? its not a proper wedding without a dance circle and elderly aunts shaking their booty to the delight of all. I reckon Princess Anne would be the first into the middle. She looks like she is a little raver on the quiet.

MoonUnit75

Stateofyou wrote: »

Of course it's racism, jealousy and probably prejudice towards Americans too running in the undercurrents. They certainly didn't embrace her on her own merits, of which I think she seems to have in spades.

Comments here I reckon would be the same as seen in the Times; unnecessarily personal and nasty. They don't even know her and of course they don't know the full story. They just want to beat her/them down to scratch some horrible itch they have in themselves. When someone is doing well and is a lovely, successful, self assured, intelligent person and they themselves are not it's a huge resentment.

The rags are just a cesspool of the worst of human behaviour. That whole culture of gossiping about others and hating them for sport needs to go. Those are real people they tear to shreds. Remember Caroline Flack? What they do to people causes real harm. It sickens me to see it here, too. There's just no need for it.

Maybe it's just because of the narcissism and lack of appreciation that royalty, whether you agree with the institution or not, is about the centuries old traditions and life of service, not your Instagram feed and media profile.

She doesn't seem to have ever understood that the royal family are supposed to earn their legitimacy through a life of public service. She seems to have thought it was like getting an upgrade to first class where people are paid to treat you like a special person even if you aren't.

cnocbui

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Maybe it's just because of the narcissism and lack of appreciation that royalty, whether you agree with the institution or not, is about the centuries old traditions and life of service, not your Instagram feed and media profile.

She doesn't seem to have ever understood that the royal family are supposed to earn their legitimacy through a life of public service. She seems to have thought it was like getting an upgrade to first class where people are paid to treat you like a special person even if you aren't.

Centuries of tradition involving self service.

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Maybe it's just because of the narcissism and lack of appreciation that royalty, whether you agree with the institution or not, is about the centuries old traditions and life of service, not your Instagram feed and media profile.

She doesn't seem to have ever understood that the royal family are supposed to earn their legitimacy through a life of public service. She seems to have thought it was like getting an upgrade to first class where people are paid to treat you like a special person even if you aren't.

What narcissism? They don't have IG or social media. But they do need some media coverage so to raise the millions they do for their foundation/charity work which in turn helps many (including animals/conservation work). What they don't need, no one needs, is to be torn to shreds making up lies to sell their trash. Why aren't you critical of that dynamic? Rag magazines/online profile's spreading fake news and hate and racism and what that does to society and to real people they target? They're the only one's harming anyone here.

Harry himself said Meghan signed up for a life of service, and that is what she wanted. He said they didn't give that up, whatever the other side's decisions, and that they will continue to live a life of service. Which they are. I think it coming straight from the horse's lips trumps what anyone else has to say about it when you don't even know them.

bitofabind

@Stateofyou do you know them personally?

Stateofyou

bitofabind wrote: »

@Stateofyou do you know them personally?

Eh no... that's why I quoted him directly? Obviously.

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

Harry himself said Meghan signed up for a life of service, and that is what she wanted. He said they didn't give that up, whatever the other side's decisions, and that they will continue to live a life of service. Which they are. I think it coming straight from the horse's lips trumps what anyone else has to say about it when you don't even know them.

I don't understand then, why leave the royal family?
If they both want a 'life of service' isn't that what they had?
But they left.......

Stateofyou

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't understand then, why leave the royal family?
If they both want a 'life of service' isn't that what they had?
But they left.......

So... you can actually watch video clips from speeches and interviews they have done where they literally explain this.

I prefer to listen to what someone has to say about their own life directly.

And it's not really for anyone else to understand or approve, is it? Any more than your life or your own personal decisions are? People will always talk. People will always disapprove and have something to say and stay small, preferring others around them are too. People will always be petty to downright nasty. They have to live their lives for themselves and family anyway, as we all do.

cnocbui

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't understand then, why leave the royal family?
If they both want a 'life of service' isn't that what they had?
But they left.......

They want to do good works without the incessant media intrusion and character assassination. Even after the death of Princess Diana, the Levinson enquiry and the phone hacking scandal, the UK still can't bring itself to muzzle the gutter press like the DM. I believe the owner of the DM is richer than the Queen, so has undue, unwarranted and unconscionable influence.

suicide_circus

Going on James Cordon in order to "step back" from the media spotlight.

Pair of absolute spoofers.

Yep, said it before, for a pair that don't like/want media intrusion into their lives, they do court the media a bit too much.

the purple tin

Well there are different types of media coverage. Going on a show like Oprah for eg lets you give your side of the story. You know it can't be twisted to misrepresent you.

Whereas a rag like the Daily Fail have their own agenda and love to put the boot in to people without giving them the right to reply, because they know it will sell more papers and get more clicks.

the purple tin

That reminds, me a few years ago I was in a shop and the young lad behind the counter said 'we are giving everyone a free copy of The Daily Mail today, would you like one?'.
I said no thanks, and told him that reading that crap would only put me in a bad mood.
He said it must be bad alright because hardly anyone had taken a copy all day

Leroy42

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep, said it before, for a pair that don't like/want media intrusion into their lives, they do court the media a bit too much.

You think that the price for any interaction with the media is that they can make up things about you and break privacy rules?

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

You think that the price for any interaction with the media is that they can make up things about you and break privacy rules?

Nope
Never said anything of the sort

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

You think that the price for any interaction with the media is that they can make up things about you and break privacy rules?

Nope
Never said anything of the sort

Leroy42

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope
Never said anything of the sort

But you are questioning why people that claim to want privacy are on Oprah and James Cordon?

You do realise that there is a difference between PR and being attacked by the media?

They are trying to sell something, and can utilise PR to generate additional revenue but that shouldn't mean they can be torn apart.

They have never said they wanted to remove themselves from the public eye, just that they want a fairer relationship

I said for people that complain so much about the media, they court plenty of media attention themselves.

It's double standards.
If they want privacy, they can have it.

cnocbui

bubblypop wrote: »

I said for people that complain so much about the media, they court plenty of media attention themselves.

It's double standards.
If they want privacy, they can have it.

No it isn't - they want public attention on cause they wish to support, they don't the Daily Mail sending someone to Mexico the track down dad and offer him a bucket of cash for a private letter she sent him, or 15 journalists camped out around the hose they had fled to in Canada, with long lenses trained on their bedroom window 24/7.

It's no different to politicians - they want relevant media attention, but they don't want them rifling through their rubbish bins or tracking down their parents and friends and trying to trick them into reveling private details - the more embarrasing, the better.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bubblypop wrote: »

I wouldn't see any issue with her not inviting some of her family to the wedding, not everyone lived in The Waltons.
We can't pick our family, unfortunately.

Me neither. I totally agree. My brother wasn’t at my wedding because he’s an awful person. I won’t go into details on why but I’m confident that there’s nobody in this thread who would query my decision if I did elaborate. I’m sure there were family members and friends wondering why he wasn’t there but they don’t know what I know.

Who knows what the dynamics are in any one else’s family. That Meghan’s father staged paparazzi shots of him working out, suit shopping and standing around looking sad before Meghan and Harry’s wedding was an interesting nugget of information, I thought. That’s a decidedly odd thing to do.

bitofabind

Yeah the Oprah trailer definitely makes it look like they're trying to give a fair and balanced "side of their story", what with the dramatic jump cuts and titillating statements like "I was afraid of history repeating itself" and Lord-of-the-Rings style music.

It also appears to put Meghan front and centre, with Harry as a side-kick, "bring him in as a side note once the main interview has been done". Should be interesting.

meeeeh

It's Oprah. It will be a human interest story. People who are into that will like it. It won't be Emily Matlis interviewing Andrew. Which btw just proves how dumb Andrew is to do an interview with current affairs type of presenter. There is a reason why Lance Armstrong did an interview with Oprah and there is a reason why for example Mary Robinson went on Lare Late.

Maybe there will be some shattering revelations but I think it will be mostly fluffy stuff, a bit of tears, a bit of mental health, a bit of evil media (understandably) and a bit of we are at peace now. English media will have a fit because of the date it will be aired on and I bet that will be just about the most controversial thing about the whole interview.

BettyS

meeeeh wrote: »

It's Oprah. It will be a human interest story. People who are into that will like it. It won't be Emily Matlis interviewing Andrew. Which btw just proves how dumb Andrew is to do an interview with current affairs type of presenter. There is a reason why Lance Armstrong did an interview with Oprah and there is a reason why for example Mary Robinson went on Lare Late.

Maybe there will be some shattering revelations but I think it will be mostly fluffy stuff, a bit of tears, a bit of mental health, a bit of evil media (understandably) and a bit of we are at peace now. English media will have a fit because of the date it will be aired on and I bet that will be just about the most controversial thing about the whole interview.

I do think that the media gave them at the same time. I also think the concept of being the spare and lesser of two siblings, re: Harry is hugely psychologically damaging. It must be hard as a child to see your brother get special sessions with your Granny.

However, I also think that they benefited hugely, in the form of a gilded lifestyle. They never acknowledge this. They will never have to scrape together the 10% for a shoebox in Lucan. I think that people are fed up listening to them bemoan a very privileged lifestyle, while a lot of people are sick or out of work. The media scrutiny hardly came as a surprise when Meghan married Harry. That is why his ex decided not to marry him. They also preach about causes, such as environmental, while living a very environmentally-damaging lifestyle. I think people see them as hypocritical

meeeeh

An awful lot of people don't need to scrape together for a shoebox in Lucan. And using that logic majority of world population would think that is the height of luxury and yet people scraping together for shoebox in Lucan have no problem complaining about their situation.

What usually bothers us is the people who have more than we do, however that doesn't mean we are not privileged in comparison to majority of world population. So us bemoaning about our privileged life can be dismissed in the same way.

BettyS

meeeeh wrote: »

An awful lot of people don't need to scrape together for a shoebox in Lucan. And using that logic majority of world population would think that is the height of luxury.

You are using the argument of false equivalence.

On a slight tangent, the median salary in this country is 40,000. If two people make 80,000 per year, and have to pay childcare costs and rent, raising 40,000+ for the deposit can feel like scraping it together.

You surely cannot deny the immense privilege the royals have? The closest most of us on Boards will get to a private jet is as a spectator from afar. The money they have by any world standard is obscene

What date will it be aired on? Is it significant?

Be right back

bubblypop wrote: »

What date will it be aired on? Is it significant?

Commonwealth day, the Queen is on TV making a speech that day too, I think.

Be right back

bitofabind wrote: »

Yeah the Oprah trailer definitely makes it look like they're trying to give a fair and balanced "side of their story", what with the dramatic jump cuts and titillating statements like "I was afraid of history repeating itself" and Lord-of-the-Rings style music.

It also appears to put Meghan front and centre, with Harry as a side-kick, "bring him in as a side note once the main interview has been done". Should be interesting.

Why aren't they being interviewed together for the whole thing?

meeeeh

BettyS wrote: »

You surely cannot deny the immense privilege the royals have? The closest most of us on Boards will get to a private jet is as a spectator from afar. The money they have by any world standard is obscene

We can't deny what privilege we have in comparison to some untouchable in Calcutta. I don't deny one bit their privilege however that doesn't mean they aren't affected by certain issues like everyone else. It's a false belief that being rich is enough to be happy (it can help but it's not enough).

I don't accept the argument that those richer than us should not complain about something just because they are richer.

Leroy42

I think everyone in the UK, the media especially, is looking at this all wrong. They are blaming Harry, and especially Megan, for wanting to leave.

But nobody is asking how and why? This is a pretty monumental decision by Harry, and yet the most the media want to do is simply blame Megan for it.

Nobody is asking what traumas and problems this fella has, or had, that has led him to this decision. Not only he is effectively turning his back on his family, but he is taking the risk of losing out on a very privileged existence.

Rather than asking how he could possibly do this to the queen, people should be asking how the hell the queen allowed it to get this far.

With all that money and privilege the easiest thing for Harry to have done is kept his mouth shut, turned up to the odd event, and lived his life. Like the majority of the royal family actually do. But he didn't, couldn't, opt for that. He needed things to fundamentally change. You can bet he brought issues up with his Da, the queen etc. It is sad that they couldn't bring themselves to look to actually help him.

I know everyone thinks the queen is amazing, but as a grandmother, as a parent, as a role model, she seems to be completely lacking. Her family is completely screwed up.

cnocbui

Be right back wrote: »

Why aren't they being interviewed together for the whole thing?

Aliens.

BettyS

meeeeh wrote: »

We can't deny what privilege we have in comparison to some untouchable in Calcutta. I don't deny one bit their privilege however that doesn't mean they aren't affected by certain issues like everyone else. It's a false belief that being rich is enough to be happy (it can help but it's not enough).

I don't accept the argument that those richer than us should not complain about something just because they are richer.

My original post never denied the struggles they face. But while yes, they have their own strife, and as I mentioned before, I think that the concept of spare is abhorrent, they have considerable advantage materially over the average human being. A simple acknowledgment of their privilege by them rather than simply outlining all that is wrong with their lives, which they are entitled to do might endear them more to the public.

The reality, be it fair, or not, is that people who have lost loved ones recently before their time or who have lost their job may not be able to relate and sympathise with them. They are entitled to share their opinion. But there are a lot of traumatised people around at the moment in society who may not be as open to their woes.

meeeeh

Leroy42 wrote: »

With all that money and privilege the easiest thing for Harry to have done is kept his mouth shut, turned up to the odd event, and lived his life. Like the majority of the royal family actually do. But he didn't, couldn't, opt for that. He needed things to fundamentally change. You can bet he brought issues up with his Da, the queen etc. It is sad that they couldn't bring themselves to look to actually help him.

I know everyone thinks the queen is amazing, but as a grandmother, as a parent, as a role model, she seems to be completely lacking. Her family is completely screwed up.

I actually think it's an institutional problem. Similar to Catholic Church institution of Royal Family is more important than individuals in it. So there is no wonder they are screwed up. I don't find royals particularly interesting, however I find the position of very archaic institutions in the society very interesting. How their roles are scrutinized in one way and not scrutinized at all in another way (Andrew again). All this just proves to me that being born as certain rank is completely f***ed up. Plus I hold them responsible for influencing 90% of boring, frumpy wedding or horse racing outfits.

Leroy42

BettyS wrote: »

My original post never denied the struggles they face. But while yes, they have their own strife, and as I mentioned before, I think that the concept of spare is abhorrent, they have considerable advantage materially over the average human being. A simple acknowledgment of their privilege by them rather than simply outlining all that is wrong with their lives, which they are entitled to do might endear them more to the public.

The other side to that is that they have a considerable amount to risk in all of this. They are, potentially, turning their back on all of that. They may well be able to maintain the money side, but their position in the social arena, in their standing in the UK, is massively at risk.

I doubt they even worry about money. For them, I guess, it is not something they have ever had to worry about. (Well Harry anyway, Megan probably until her acting break).

But it strikes me as about something far more important, to Harry at least, than money.

BettyS

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually think it's an institutional problem. Similar to Catholic Church institution of Royal Family is more important than individuals in it. So there is no wonder they are screwed up. I don't find royals particularly interesting, however I find the position of very archaic institutions in the society very interesting. How their roles are scrutinized in one way and not scrutinized at all in another way (Andrew again). All this just proves to me that being born as certain rank is completely f***ed up. Plus I hold them responsible for influencing 90% of boring, frumpy wedding or horse racing outfits.

I look at my young nieces and nephews, and their close relationship with my mother. I cannot imagine the hurt if she singled out one of them to nurture and to have special bonding time with. We all need to feel purpose in our life. Feeling that your only purpose is to be the understudy is wrong. Harry likely never got to develop as a person in his own right. I also think having no control over one’s life direction is ridiculous

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think everyone in the UK, the media especially, is looking at this all wrong. They are blaming Harry, and especially Megan, for wanting to leave.

But nobody is asking how and why? This is a pretty monumental decision by Harry, and yet the most the media want to do is simply blame Megan for it.

Nobody is asking what traumas and problems this fella has, or had, that has led him to this decision. Not only he is effectively turning his back on his family, but he is taking the risk of losing out on a very privileged existence.

Rather than asking how he could possibly do this to the queen, people should be asking how the hell the queen allowed it to get this far.

With all that money and privilege the easiest thing for Harry to have done is kept his mouth shut, turned up to the odd event, and lived his life. Like the majority of the royal family actually do. But he didn't, couldn't, opt for that. He needed things to fundamentally change. You can bet he brought issues up with his Da, the queen etc. It is sad that they couldn't bring themselves to look to actually help him.

I know everyone thinks the queen is amazing, but as a grandmother, as a parent, as a role model, she seems to be completely lacking. Her family is completely screwed up.

My impression from watching people talk about William and Harry is that after their mother died the British public became very protective of them. I don’t recall whether Kate Middleton was universally at the outset but being a member of the royal family isn’t a normal existence and most of them seem to get on with it. I think if Meghan and Harry had given it a few years then maybe the reaction to them leaving might not have been so negative. I mean I think the current situation will change whether Harry and Meghan like it or not when the queen dies and Charles becomes king.

An institution like the British royal family isn’t going to fundamentally change over night seeing as it’s been in existence for centuries.

Who says they didn’t help him ? I mean he’s spoken on TV about the struggles he had after the death of his mother with William and Kate and it seemed like he was getting past it.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

My original post never denied the struggles they face. But while yes, they have their own strife, and as I mentioned before, I think that the concept of spare is abhorrent, they have considerable advantage materially over the average human being. A simple acknowledgment of their privilege by them rather than simply outlining all that is wrong with their lives, which they are entitled to do might endear them more to the public.

The reality, be it fair, or not, is that people who have lost loved ones recently before their time or who have lost their job may not be able to relate and sympathise with them. They are entitled to share their opinion. But there are a lot of traumatised people around at the moment in society who may not be as open to their woes.

No matter what someone is going through in their own personal life, it's completely their own choice (or failing, in my opinion) to begrudge, judge, look down on, be angry towards someone else because they're perceived to have it better.

Of course they're aware of their privileged position; they've dedicated their lives to service and helping others instead of looking out for only themselves and not even attempting to give back like so many others. They need to take control of their image and story because their popularity will in part make it easier for them to make the deals and pull in the kind of money it takes to make the big impacts they hope to have.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

No matter what someone is going through in their own personal life, it's completely their own choice (or failing, in my opinion) to begrudge, judge, look down on, be angry towards someone else because they're perceived to have it better.

Of course they're aware of their privileged position; they've dedicated their lives to service and helping others instead of looking out for only themselves and not even attempting to give back like so many others. They need to take control of their image and story because their popularity will in part make it easier for them to make the deals and pull in the kind of money it takes to make the big impacts they hope to have.

Not everybody can reach the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as you suggest.

I have seen people that had genuinely traumatic lives. After the lives that they have had, far be it for me to judge their “failing” i.e begrudging those with better off lives. You are judging those who “begrudge”, as evident by your own pejorative comment about them? We all judge. There is a difference between judgement and condemnation.

Time will tell what kind of difference that they will lead. Time will tell what they will do with the vast sums of money that they receive.

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My impression from watching people talk about William and Harry is that after their mother died the British public became very protective of them. I don’t recall whether Kate Middleton was universally at the outset but being a member of the royal family isn’t a normal existence and most of them seem to get on with it. I think if Meghan and Harry had given it a few years then maybe the reaction to them leaving might not have been so negative. I mean I think the current situation will change whether Harry and Meghan like it or not when the queen dies and Charles becomes king.

An institution like the British royal family isn’t going to fundamentally change over night seeing as it’s been in existence for centuries.

Who says they didn’t help him ? I mean he’s spoken on TV about the struggles he had after the death of his mother with William and Kate and it seemed like he was getting past it.

And yet he has turned his back on the whole thing. So whether you, or anyone else, thinks he was past it, or will get past it, seems to be the opposite.

Institutions change all the time. Was a time when divorce wasn't allowed. When the Queen didn't pay taxes. Hell when the queen was in sole charge.

They didn't want to change it. They didn't want to stand up to the media. The worried that standing up to the media may result in the media being less fawning to them and thus place their institution in jeopardy from a public losing interest.

The Queen has done a great job in bringing the Royal family back into the hearts and minds of the general public. But it's a marketing company, and Harry didn't want (as far as I can tell) to be part of the game. He doesn't seem to buy in that the price for their place in the media, is to have lies, and private details leaked.

The queen could have done something to help, should have done more to help. They didn't. How much they did or didn't do, I've no idea.

But nobody seems to be even asking. Its all Meaghan's fault, coming over here, with her notions and looking to change things. Get back in your box.

And even they way they dealt with Harry, Rather than accept he wants to change things, he wants to step back from 100% but still do lots of good work, they gve him an ultimatum. Our way or the high way.

Stateofyou

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My impression from watching people talk about William and Harry is that after their mother died the British public became very protective of them. I don’t recall whether Kate Middleton was universally at the outset but being a member of the royal family isn’t a normal existence and most of them seem to get on with it. I think if Meghan and Harry had given it a few years then maybe the reaction to them leaving might not have been so negative. I mean I think the current situation will change whether Harry and Meghan like it or not when the queen dies and Charles becomes king.

An institution like the British royal family isn’t going to fundamentally change over night seeing as it’s been in existence for centuries.

Who says they didn’t help him ? I mean he’s spoken on TV about the struggles he had after the death of his mother with William and Kate and it seemed like he was getting past it.

Harry explicitly said his mental health was being destroyed, and Meghan said she was not doing well.

Mental health issues will not wait for a more "convenient" time...

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Harry explicitly said his mental health was being destroyed, and Meghan said she was not doing well.

Mental health issues will not wait for a more "convenient" time...

I am playing Devil’s advocate here. So, granted he left for mental health reasons. But when he was talking to the executive from Disney about a role for Meghan and they lined up the Netflix, Oprah and Corden deals, the UK public saw them using their royal positions as a springboard to bigger and higher things. It seems in the eyes of the British public like it was his strategy all along to reach stardom, rather than a need for seeking equanimity.

Ultimately, they are free persons. They are free to choose their course in life. Nothing is worth compromised mental health. It is the actions post-leaving that may have presented them in a negative light. I am not defining right or wrong, I am certainly in no position to do this. However, the issue now is the public perception.

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

And yet he has turned his back on the whole thing. So whether you, or anyone else, thinks he was past it, or will get past it, seems to be the opposite.

Institutions change all the time. Was a time when divorce wasn't allowed. When the Queen didn't pay taxes. Hell when the queen was in sole charge.

They didn't want to change it. They didn't want to stand up to the media. The worried that standing up to the media may result in the media being less fawning to them and thus place their institution in jeopardy from a public losing interest.

The Queen has done a great job in bringing the Royal family back into the hearts and minds of the general public. But it's a marketing company, and Harry didn't want (as far as I can tell) to be part of the game. He doesn't seem to buy in that the price for their place in the media, is to have lies, and private details leaked.

The queen could have done something to help, should have done more to help. They didn't. How much they did or didn't do, I've no idea.

But nobody seems to be even asking. Its all Meaghan's fault, coming over here, with her notions and looking to change things. Get back in your box.

And even they way they dealt with Harry, Rather than accept he wants to change things, he wants to step back from 100% but still do lots of good work, they gve him an ultimatum. Our way or the high way.

I didn’t say that. Prince Harry said on tv that he had started to address those issues. He also said it helped he had William to talk to about it which seems to have broken down which is an awful shame if true.

I don’t disagree that there’s an element of self preservation involved with the royal family and the press but they both use each other to keep things as they are.

It’s a sad situation wrapped up a bizarre institution which probably amplifies the issues at hand. And btw Harry was well able to use the press to his own ends previously. Surely he could have played the press at their own game.

BettyS

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I didn’t say that. Prince Harry said on tv that he had started to address those issues. He also said it helped he had William to talk to about it which seems to have broken down which is an awful shame if true.

I don’t disagree that there’s an element of self preservation involved with the royal family and the press but they both use each other to keep things as they are.

It’s a sad situation wrapped up a bizarre institution which probably amplifies the issues at hand. And btw Harry was well able to use the press to his own ends previously. Surely he could have played the press at their own game.

Correct me if I am wrong, I agree with your point. Additionally, do the royal family not have immense power over what the UK press can report?

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, I agree with your point. Additionally, do the royal family not have immense power over what the UK press can report?

Kate's published topless photos taken with an extreme long lens from the treetops suggest otherwise...

Stateofyou

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I didn’t say that. Prince Harry said on tv that he had started to address those issues. He also said it helped he had William to talk to about it which seems to have broken down which is an awful shame if true.

I don’t disagree that there’s an element of self preservation involved with the royal family and the press but they both use each other to keep things as they are.

It’s a sad situation wrapped up a bizarre institution which probably amplifies the issues at hand. And btw Harry was well able to use the press to his own ends previously. Surely he could have played the press at their own game.

He literally said he's not going to be bullied into playing a game that killed his mum.

the purple tin

Stateofyou wrote: »

Kate's published topless photos taken with an extreme long lens from the treetops suggest otherwise...

Prince Andrew's interview as well. That would never have been aired if they had the power to stop it.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

I am playing Devil’s advocate here. So, granted he left for mental health reasons. But when he was talking to the executive from Disney about a role for Meghan and they lined up the Netflix, Oprah and Corden deals, the UK public saw them using their royal positions as a springboard to bigger and higher things. It seems in the eyes of the British public like it was his strategy all along to reach stardom, rather than a need for seeking equanimity.

Ultimately, they are free persons. They are free to choose their course in life. Nothing is worth compromised mental health. It is the actions post-leaving that may have presented them in a negative light. I am not defining right or wrong, I am certainly in no position to do this. However, the issue now is the public perception.

Missed this one.

Well I read the Disney documentary she voiced was all for charity, and the fee donated directly to elephant conservation.
Why wouldn't they use their best / biggest / only leverage to support themselves and their charitable foundation? I disagree on the point about stardom. He already has that as a royal prince.

The issue with public perception I think is due in large part to the relentless negative media printing lies people read as gospel and it turns perceptions and support against them. Of course they need to take control of their own truth. I also think many have issue with her skin tone.

the purple tin

BettyS wrote: »

Yes, but allegedly there was another, more damaging story about them that never made the light of day in the UK.

They must have a certain amount of pull anyway.
There was very little reporting of the Jimmy Savile connection to the Royal Family after it all came out about him.

afro man

Stateofyou wrote: »

Kate's published topless photos taken with an extreme long lens from the treetops suggest otherwise...

Think this was the French Media that released these pictures they would not listen to the British Monarchy