Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

Even if it costed 40 people their places?

How do you even know those seats were being used?
Have 40 people come out to say they were forced out of those seats??

Purple Mountain

JoChervil wrote: »

But I think it would be nice to share such fact with them, like when Archie was born etc.

As much as I don't like this woman, i don't agree. Noone should have to divulge personal information or be paraded around for a photo opportunity.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

They had a choice between the two titles available to them (Earl of Dumbarton - one of Harry's subsidiary titles - or Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) and they chose that without title.

The title of prince was not available to him yet at that stage.

Which they are happy to use by all accounts.

valoren

It is "optics" like the Wimbledon seats which are what incite the gutter press and their savage coverage influences people's opinions towards celebs i.e. you bring it in yourself. If people weren't moved and the entourage mingled with the crowd then there is nothing for the press to moan about beyond rebelling against dress codes yet a picture can paint a thousand words and people see empty seats (in one of the main court which are always full) and they think "Yep, diva". You wouldn't see any senior royal pulling such an attention seeking, self-possessed action because they would not want to, pardon the pun, court the idea that they're better than the public.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Which they are happy to use by all accounts.

But you said they didn't resign from the title. They did from the Earl title.

Ms2011

valoren wrote: »

It is "optics" like the Wimbledon seats which are what incite the gutter press and their savage coverage influences people's opinions towards celebs i.e. you bring it in yourself. If people weren't moved and the entourage mingled with the crowd then there is nothing for the press to moan about beyond rebelling against dress codes yet a picture can paint a thousand words and people see empty seats (in one of the main court which are always full) and they think "Yep, diva".

Exactly! It's unclear why those seats were empty but anti Meghaners (is that a word? ) will assume it must have been at Meghan's request.

Princess Calla

JoChervil wrote: »

But I think it would be nice to share such fact with them, like when Archie was born etc.

They are not sharing when the new baby is due either, she repeatedly said summertime.

Lots of people are extremely private about their children.

I genuinely don't fault them for keeping intimate moments private.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

But you said they didn't resign from the title. They did from the Earl title.

I said people assumed she didn't want to give her child a title when we know from her interview that that is not the case and if/when he is entitled to become a Prince she will give him that title so its not like she's anti title.

JoChervil

Princess Calla wrote: »

They are not sharing when the new baby is due either, she repeatedly said summertime.

Lots of people are extremely private about their children.

I genuinely don't fault them for keeping intimate moments private.

They are private people so no problem with it now.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

I said people assumed she didn't want to give her child a title when we know from her interview that that is not the case and if/when he is entitled to become a Prince she will give him that title so its not like she's anti title.

No, you assumed that people assumed it. Press covered that they resigned from the Earl title and they were entitled to write so.

Princess Calla

JoChervil wrote: »

Maybe people dislike her simply because of her own actions? Forcing 40 people out of their places only to wear jeans because the royal dress code didn't allow her to be in their box. How petty it is. She was a working royal, how many of us must follow a working dress code? If it is not a diva behaviour, so I don't know, what is...

I found a picture showing the guy taking the selfie.

It's the man in the front row. Two rows infront of Meghan. ....the picture shows him standing up , back the court with his arms outstretched over the seats, right infront of Meghan's face.....it does look like he's taking a picture of her and the phone screen is facing the court so no way of knowing it was a selfie.

It was day 4 on court 1 , so the seating area may have been naturally empty especially for the Williams match.

Sir_Name

anewme wrote: »

I’m not that interested in them to be honest and don’t know that much about it other than really high level stuff.

I’ve always felt the press were out to get her though and noticed a pattern in the reporting. Another poster on another thread said it was all kicking off on GMB so I went down and sure enough Piers M got his come uppance . The post is still there I believe.

I could not believe he had the gall to call her a liar to her face about the mental health. Same as here. Step too far.

Seeing the core of people here launching post after post and the level to which she was taken apart would have to be questioned too and I do believe that’s most people’s bone of contention. The wedding stuff is nonsense to me, she didnt want the rights in the kids, big deal, hardly worth getting upset over. I said they could have put the footsies in the shoes or whatever.

I don’t really do celeb stuff, understand totally why people are saying it’s a Distraction, but I do find it bizarre the way this thread went.

Absolutely no need for the language used about her whatsoever.

You’re invested enough to have numerous posts on this thread.
You really haven’t addressed any of the points I mentioned re the optics or subsequent events, just deflected again to treatment of the papers. I’d be really interested in your personal opinion...

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

No, you assumed that people assumed it. Press covered that they resigned from the Earl title and they were entitled to write so.

It was reported they refused it but Meghan said they did not.

Archie was eligible for a "courtesy title" at birth, such as Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. At the time, it was reported that Harry and Meghan had chosen not to give him a title. But the duchess told Oprah, "it was not our decision to make".10 Mar 2021

Sir_Name

Ms2011 wrote: »

It was reported they refused it but Meghan said they did not.

Archie was eligible for a "courtesy title" at birth, such as Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. At the time, it was reported that Harry and Meghan had chosen not to give him a title. But the duchess told Oprah, "it was not our decision to make".10 Mar 2021

Incorrect.
This is a quote from CBS who aired the show.
Meghan was speaking about the HRH title. Which has been explained numerous times here, that he was not entitled to.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-archie-mountbatten-windsor-royal-title/

Ms2011

Sir_Name wrote: »

Incorrect.
This is a quote from CBS who aired the show.
Meghan was speaking about the HRH title. Which has been explained numerous times here, that he was not entitled to.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-archie-mountbatten-windsor-royal-title/

So either way they are not anti title.

chooseusername

chooseusername wrote: »

Out in public , they're always "working".

Ms2011 wrote: »

The correct answer is no she wasn't working, she was socialising with a friend.

One can't be an off-duty royal.

Ms2011

chooseusername wrote: »

One can't be an off-duty royal.

In your opinion, in reality he was off duty and out with her friends.

chooseusername

Ms2011 wrote: »

In your opinion, in reality he was off duty and out with her friends.

In reality she was representing the Royal family, off-duty or not.

dogbert27

Ms2011 wrote: »

In your opinion, in reality he was off duty and out with her friends.

If this is your true understanding of how being a member of a monarchy works then it is a naive view and I'm not just talking about the British monarchy, members of all monarchies have to follow rules and protocols. As a member of a monarchy you can't decide from day to day whether you are royal or a private citizen.

Ms2011

chooseusername wrote: »

In reality she was representing the Royal family, off-duty or not.

If you wish to believe that someone who is not only working but is on maternity leave is still on duty then so be it.
Either way I can't see that she did anything wrong at Wimbledon, I mean if wearing jeans while out with friends is where the bar is being held for Meghan no wonder she falls short in so many people's eyes.

chooseusername

Her mistake was thinking like you.

dogbert27

Ms2011 wrote: »

If you wish to believe that someone who is not only working but is on maternity leave is still on duty then so be it.
Either way I can't see that she did anything wrong at Wimbledon, I mean if wearing jeans while out with friends is where the bar is being held for Meghan no wonder she falls short in so many people's eyes.

Are you for real? She's on maternity leave?

Was she just receiving the state benefit or did her "employer" top up her monthly salary?

Ms2011

chooseusername wrote: »

Her mistake was thinking like you.

Well if she didn't realise she had to curtsy to the queen in private she may well not have known jeans would have caused such a stir so maybe instead of calling her a diva she could have been cut a bit of slack.

Ms2011

dogbert27 wrote: »

Are you for real? She's on maternity leave?

Was she just receiving the state benefit or did her "employer" top up her monthly salary?

She was on maternity leave, yes. What's your point?

anewme

Sir_Name wrote: »

You’re invested enough to have numerous posts on this thread.
You really haven’t addressed any of the points I mentioned re the optics or subsequent events, just deflected again to treatment of the papers. I’d be really interested in your personal opinion...

I've invested enough in the topics I know about and have an opinion on.

You've asked me about all this Gayle King (some friend of Oprah or Megan?) nonsense.

I dont know enough about it or care about it to have a personal opinion.

You seem reluctant to believe that some people could not care either way, but can see the pile on in general and particular here and feel it uncalled for.

But that's the way it is Im sure for most people.

Be right back

Ms2011 wrote: »

If you wish to believe that someone who is not only working but is on maternity leave is still on duty then so be it.
Either way I can't see that she did anything wrong at Wimbledon, I mean if wearing jeans while out with friends is where the bar is being held for Meghan no wonder she falls short in so many people's eyes.

Why was there so many empty seats around her? Something never seen at Wimbledon.

dogbert27

Ms2011 wrote: »

She was on maternity leave, yes. What's your point?

My point is there isn't a thing called maternity leave when you're part of the monarchy.

Ms2011

Be right back wrote: »

Why was there so many empty seats around her? Something never seen at Wimbledon.

No one has an answer for that, do you know?

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Well if she didn't realise she had to curtsy to the queen in private she may well not have known jeans would have caused such a stir so maybe instead of calling her a diva she could have been cut a bit of slack.

In 2016 in Wimbledon, she was told to keep her hat down, during a match, so she knew the protocol: smart closing, no hats in royal box. Yet in 2019, she wore both. And she had people employed to remind her about the protocol like PA.

Ms2011

dogbert27 wrote: »

My point is there isn't a thing called maternity leave when you're part of the monarchy.

So what is the period of time after a royal woman has a baby and does not work for a couple of months after called?