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

Purple Mountain

Just for clarity, did Archie get offered Earl or Lord and his parents declined?

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're asking me, do I think she'll be happy if he get the title of Prince?, then yes I do.

she will be delighted when the queen dies so!!

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're asking me, do I think she'll be happy if he get the title of Prince?, then yes I do.

See, that would seem to contradict what she said previously about wanting to give Archie a normal, simple childhood. To be honest, giving a kid the title of Prince is not really part of a "normal" childhood.

BettyS

Neyite wrote: »

Oooh there's about a billion differences, isn't there?

It’s funny. The Meghan and Harry fans come out ad nauseum to nit pick our comments about the trivial things, like the Wimbledon event. And yet when we ask them the far more pertinent question about it being okay to divulge personal information from a private conversation between Harry and his dad, but it’s abhorrent to share information about conversations between Meghan and her dad, we hear nada from them

Ms2011

bubblypop wrote: »

Its not a like/dislike of her. I honestly didnt have any feelings towards her before. I hadnt seen the show she was on, and didn't know her as an actress, saw her play a delivery girl in Horrible Bosses. ( great film!)
but I didnt have any feelings about her either way.

I don't particularly like the way she has behaved now, I find it very disrespectful and completely unfair.

Same really about your first paragraph but I thought she sounded genuine in the interview however when I came on here and seen all the negativity towards her I had a look back on her past and I can't find much to dislike about her by all accounts she was much liked so I can't see why she would do such a potentially damaging interview just for ****s and giggles she (and Harry) must have felt very strongly about the subjects they discussed.

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

Same really about your first paragraph but I thought she sounded genuine in the interview however when I came on here and seen all the negativity towards her I had a look back on her past and I can't find much to dislike about her by all accounts she was much liked so I can't see why she would do such a potentially damaging interview just for ****s and giggles she (and Harry) must have felt very strongly about the subjects they discussed.

I have no doubt she feels strongly about negative press coverage of herself, I just feel that is something she needs to deal with herself in private. Counselling perhaps to get over her need for public approval. I feel she would have been better if, instead of trying to fight against the royal family, she had taken on board the traditions and learned to be more like them, rather than be against.

I find it a bit pathetic, tbh, 'I didn't make Kate cry, she made me cry'
if they were 15 year old girls, I would understand it, I would still tell them to grow up however.

Ms2011

Deleted User wrote: »

See, that would seem to contradict what she said previously about wanting to give Archie a normal, simple childhood. To be honest, giving a kid the title of Prince is not really part of a "normal" childhood.

They want to give Archie as normal a childhood as possible, he'll still be the king of England's grandson, nephew and cousin as well as the son of a Prince. He will always be vulnerable to those who might wish to exploit that.

Ms2011

bubblypop wrote: »

I have no doubt she feels strongly about negative press coverage of herself, I just feel that is something she needs to deal with herself in private. Counselling perhaps to get over her need for public approval. I feel she would have been better if, instead of trying to fight against the royal family, she had taken on board the traditions and learned to be more like them, rather than be against.

I find it a bit pathetic, tbh, 'I didn't make Kate cry, she made me cry'
if they were 15 year old girls, I would understand it, I would still tell them to grow up however.

I'm not even going down the 'Crygate' rabbit hole again

Like I said before there are no winners, I think all sides will regret not handling things differently.

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

They want to give Archie as normal a childhood as possible, he'll still be the king of England's grandson, nephew and cousin as well as the son of a Prince. He will always be vulnerable to those who might wish to exploit that.

Yes but my point was that if they truly wanted a "normal" life then they would be happy for their son not to be a Prince, for the same reason they declined a title like "Lord" or "Earl" when he was born.

On the one hand they say they don't want him to have a title, that they want him to be simply "Archie", but on the other hand they are implying that they are unhappy the royals refused to make Archie a prince because of his skin colour. If they are happy for him to be simply "Archie" then why talk about the title in the first place?

Princess Calla

BettyS wrote: »

It’s funny. The Meghan and Harry fans come out ad nauseum to nit pick our comments about the trivial things, like the Wimbledon event. And yet when we ask them the far more pertinent question about it being okay to divulge personal information from a private conversation between Harry and his dad, but it’s abhorrent to share information about conversations between Meghan and her dad, we hear nada from them

Well my take on it is.....Meghan's family have been out of her life for years...I question how much her elder siblings were in her life to begin with.

So for them to suddenly come out of the woodwork as soon as she was marrying royalty and start to try to cash in is abit rich.

The conversation between Harry and Charles related to Meghan's child.....as a mother she has a right to call anyone talking negatively about her child.

Do I think they should have done the interview? No probably not, but in saying that there has been so many negative articles written about her I'm not surprised she wanted to get her point across and tell "her truths" ..... especially when there's a certain amount of courting between the palace and the media.

Regarding wimbledon I highly doubt it would have made press if it wasn't for a PR person being asked to not take pictures, and then piers morgan running with it.

Now when Princess Margaret was accused of calling all the Irish "pigs" the royal family addressed it immediately....so the palace can retaliate to a story when it wants to.

At this point if Meghan had skeletons in her closet I'd say we'd have heard about them. I can't find any article about her pre-harry that portrays her in a negative light.

Even when "suits" was gaining popularity there was no gossip about her that I can see anyway.

Ms2011

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but my point was that if they truly wanted a "normal" life then they would be happy for their son not to be a Prince, for the same reason they declined a title like "Lord" or "Earl" when he was born.

On the one hand they say they don't want him to have a title, that they want him to be simply "Archie", but on the other hand they are implying that they are unhappy the royals refused to make Archie a prince because of his skin colour. If they are happy for him to be simply "Archie" then why talk about the title in the first place?

I thought it was because a title equaled protection?

Neyite

Ms2011 wrote: »

I thought it was because a title equaled protection?

But it doesn't.

Andrew is still a prince but got his security taken off him.

Ditto for his daughters, still princesses but no security once they reached 18.

That would have been very obvious to H&M surely?

Ms2011

Neyite wrote: »

But it doesn't.

Andrew is still a prince but got his security taken off him.

Ditto for his daughters, still princesses but no security once they reached 18.

That would have been very obvious to H&M surely?

But they did have it initially?

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

It was not a gesture of a good will. It was a deal with the Queen. They were allowed to keep it as their UK home but they had to return taxpayers money, if they wanted to leave RF.

they were leaving the rf regardless of whether they returned tax payers money or not, tax payers money that was being spent anyway as it's a hystorical building belonging to the royal estate.

JoChervil wrote: »

Do you think Kate revealed all to the public and didn't have intimate moments? She was able to keep up with tradition and share her joy with British people. It is this attitude, how you treat others: as friends or enemies. If you treat others as enemies, so don't be surprised by public reaction back to you.

megan owes the british public sweet FA.
the fact kate kept up with "tradition" is her own choice, megan chose not to do so and that was the choice that was right for her.
the fact she made "enemies" over more or less nothing says more about the individuals who have decided she is such an enemy, probably because the news paper told them she is one, more then it says about her.

JoChervil wrote: »

Do you really believe that Kate or Diana showing their newborns were a freak show? You can twist everything in this way. And what's wrong with informing people, that the child was born?

actually yes, i do believe the royals effectively being expected to show off their new borns is a form of a freak show.
now if they were just doing it by choice, and are happy with that choice, then it wouldn't be, as it would be their choice to do it, but as it is "expected" and people whinge when it doesn't happen when they want it, then to me that would constitute a freak show.
the people were informed of the birth of the child when the child's parents felt it was the right time.

JoChervil wrote: »

Of course she hadn't. But then don't do a global interview and moan, that press didn't like you.

And my post was an answer to a poster, who couldn't see, why press and people didn't like her.

given that certain parts of the british press behave as they do, then she had no option but to do some sort of interview to clear up things.
certain parts of the british press don't like her because she was their next big thing in terms of royalty and she not only left the royal family, but refused to be a good little girl and know her place and be a robot when she was part of it.
parts of the public don't like her because those parts of the press told them not to do so based on complete and utter nonsense.
look, she may very well be a thundering btch for all i know, not that i care, but realistically it seems the reasons for having a go at her are so nonsensical it's actually beyond ridiculous.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

A first world problem that apparently warranted a 2 hour sit down with Oprah. Oh the struggles!

did she sit down for an interview because of something someone on boards.ie believes?

Deleted User wrote: »

You think they need the hassle that would come from ejecting her for denim? It would have caused a furore. They turned a blind eye but it was needlessly provocative. Why would you wear denim to an event like that, but yet she wears designer dresses for her Zoom calls? I think she just wanted to test every rule, every boundary constantly. Clearing out the seats around her. Banning people from taking photos near her. Refusing to allow video of people arriving at the babies Christening. Confusion over when exactly she went into labour. Refusing to reveal the names of the Godparents. Refusing to pose for a photo with the new baby leaving the hospital. Small, tiny things in and of themselves. But symptomatic of a control freak who just will not go with the flow of an institution hundreds of years old that she willingly married into.

or maybe they just didn't care a less, thought like most normal people that it was so a beyond first world problem that it wasn't worth even wasting their time on.
her wearing a certain clothing material is provocative? really? yeah sure it is, the only people who would feel like that are those looking for any excuse to have a go at her.
even if she did want to test every rule and boundary, who cares, it's a non-issue.
no evidence she cleared seats around her, she is entitled to say no video's at her child's christening if she wishes to do so, she is the child's parent.
revealing exactly when she went in to labour, naming the god parents or posing like some prize cow for a photo leaving the hospital with her baby are things she absolutely has no obligation to do, and her not doing them are symptematic of nothing.
the fact she didn't go with the flow of an institution hundreds of years old that she willingly married into is the biggest non-issue going, as i said, just scraping the barrel to find something to have a go at her for, because she refused to be a good little girl and know her place.

Deleted User wrote: »

Each little thing is perfectly defendable and excuses can always be made. But there are just so many of these incidents, which taken together paint a portrait in the public's mind. Of course someone who had given birth is all over the place. But just tick those little basic boxes and then everybody moves on. People are not expecting much. A photo and a name. It's not that complicated. Most normal people are happy and want to celebrate the birth of a new baby. But the extreme privacy over Archie just seemed a little bit mean-spirited.

It's the constant drama and game playing with the media that seems unnecessary.

paint a portrate in the minds of a subsection of the public, yes.
most of the public really couldn't give a toss, i suspect even in the uk, never mind here.
the people got their photo and name, when the parents decided the time was right, non-issue.
the privacy over this baby was only mean spirited to those looking for something to have a go.

bubblypop wrote: »

She didn't need to come out to say anything about articles in gutter newsrags.
She needed to move on and forget about what people say about her. Rise above it.
They released a statement about stepping back from royal duties, which was more than enough, no need to lower themselves to tabloid rubbish arguments.

Also, knowing that the Royal family will not respond to anything, and then saying what they did about them? Very sneaky, underhand and extremely unfair.

realistically her saying nothing would have been used as a confirmation that any allegations made against her by the gutter trash elements of the press were actually true.
she wasn't going to win either way, so better she at least tried to clear things up rather then staying quite and allowing it to eat away at her.

Her saying nothing would have been her not lowering herself to the level of tabloid newspapers and celebrity gossip pages.
Like the royal family that she wants to change so much, but at least they don't engage themselves in tit for tat rubbish stories with 'journalists'

Neyite

Ms2011 wrote: »

But they did have it initially?

Yes. Andrew got it for royal duties as a working royal. When he stepped back from royal duties it was taken away from him. Anne has it for royal duties only, same as Andrew had. Outside of their Royal engagements they didn't have it. That applies to all other royals as well.

Beatrice & Eugiene got it as minors but when they turned 18 it was removed as they were not going to be working royals.

The people who have it 24/7 are: Queen & Philp, Charles & Camilla, Wills & Kate (and kids). And before they stepped down from royal duties, so did Harry & Meghan.

The royals actually have zero input into what security they get. It's a committee called RAVEC within the MET police that decide it.
It's not based on titles but on risk assessments - how high profile they are, succession to the throne and based on intelligence reports of threats, and based on where their engagements are - so for example you can imagine additional security added on if visiting Northern Ireland, but not if they are going to Hull.

The other problem is that when abroad, that committee liaise with local policing and create a security detail that best suits that trip and the level of risk at the time. By moving full time to California it created an operational issue. RPO's aren't allowed carry guns in the US, nor do they have access to intelligence to enable them to stay aware of the potential threats. And it doesn't help that the US have a high gun ownership level. So what they are asking for isn't just a matter of sending a couple of cops - you are sending a detail of six officers on a 3 week rotation but also sending them to a state that's got a lot of gun threats, without guns and without access to local intelligence sources. Trump made it clear he wasn't going to help them with security - which would have included intelligence. Canada were grumbling about it too when they were there.



H&M were asking for something the UK couldn't fully provide from a safely point of view - even if they wanted to. The royals possibly could have provided them with private security but again, why should they incur the cost of that when it was H&M's choice to move where they did?

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

they were leaving the rf regardless of whether they returned tax payers money or not, tax payers money that was being spent anyway as it's a hystorical building belonging to the royal estate.

look, she may very well be a thundering btch for all i know, not that i care, but realistically it seems the reasons for having a go at her are so nonsensical it's actually beyond ridiculous.

They had to return it, if they wanted to keep it as their residence in UK. They wanted, so they paid. Why taxpayers money should be spend for someone's private residence?

I completely didn't care about her earlier. But listening to an interview, in which she decided to have a go back at press and Kate after 14 months after leaving UK (and roughly 20 months after incident, when ridiculing that press had a go at her after 6 months) is for me even more ridiculous. Especially, if it is done in the middle of the pandemic.

anewme

end of the road wrote: »

megan owes the british public sweet FA.

the british press don't like her because she was their next big thing in terms of royalty and she not only left the royal family, but refused to be a good little girl and know her place and be a robot when she was part of it.
parts of the public don't like her because those parts of the press told them not to do so based on complete and utter nonsense.
look, she may very well be a thundering btch for all i know, not that i care, but realistically it seems the reasons for having a go at her are so nonsensical it's actually beyond ridiculous.

Sums it up for me.

Samsonsmasher

The Donald has thrown down the gauntlet to Meghan who is flirting with running on the Democrat ticket in 2024.

He's not a fan.

It would be hilarious if this became a reality.

A head to head between Donald and Meghan would be pay per view

Be right back

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Donald has thrown down the gauntlet to Meghan who is flirting with running on the Democrat ticket in 2024.

He's not a fan.

It would be hilarious if this became a reality.

A head to head between Donald and Meghan would be pay per view

It really would.

extra gravy

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

He's not a fan.

Yeah because she didn't fawn over him during the 2016 election run. He hates women that don't want anything to do with him, just like his buddy Piers.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The thread isn't about Andrew, but he was criticised, I've done so several times.

He was also vilified in the thread about him at the time of the interview.

It's interesting that you have zero concern for Piers Morgan and have criticised him repeatedly, and thanked posts name calling him, here and elsewhere.


You seem more concerned with how women are treated, than criticism per se.

That's the second time on this thread you have accused me of having a pro-woman Agenda.

Previously, you accused me of having an agenda calling out people using abusive terms to belittle women, such as blue haired lesbian. Yesterday someone called them purple haired lesbians. I told you then I will call out ignorance and will continue to do so.

I have criticised Piers Morgan because I believe he carried out a personal vendetta against someone because they rejected him, boo hoo. When someone served it up to him, he legged it,

Despite him constantly abusing her and calling her a liar, Me-Gain, etc, she has not retaliated and has ignored him.

You seem more concerned in finding a woman angle, than actually acknowledging PM's disgusting and petty vendetta.

Me-gain and Hostage etc, school yard names and should have been left there.

Petty.

Samsonsmasher

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Donald has thrown down the gauntlet to Meghan who is flirting with running on the Democrat ticket in 2024.

He's not a fan.

It would be hilarious if this became a reality.

A head to head between Donald and Meghan would be pay per view

LOL the Don is still alive. That would be absolutely hilarious.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

Her saying nothing would have been her not lowering herself to the level of tabloid newspapers and celebrity gossip pages.
Like the royal family that she wants to change so much, but at least they don't engage themselves in tit for tat rubbish stories with 'journalists'

but again, it would be highly likely that her silence would be used to say that the allegations were true because she didn't deny them.
she wasn't going to win either way, so the choice was between "lower" herself and speak her side of the story, or not lower herself and have people thinking stuff was true that may not be.
she made the choice to give her side of the story, and given that was the choice she felt was correct, then she was right to take that choice.

JoChervil wrote: »

They had to return it, if they wanted to keep it as their residence in UK. They wanted, so they paid. Why taxpayers money should be spend for someone's private residence?

I completely didn't care about her earlier. But listening to an interview, in which she decided to have a go back at press and Kate after 14 months after leaving UK (and roughly 20 months after incident, when ridiculing that press had a go at her after 6 months) is for me even more ridiculous. Especially, if it is done in the middle of the pandemic.

perhapse you could ask the british government why it is that tax payers money is spent on refurbishing buildings belonging to the royal estate, even if they are only being used for private residence?
why is doing the interview worse when done during this pandemic? either it's right or it's wrong for her to have done it.
sounds like more scraping the barrel to have a go at her, tbh, actually, scraping under the barrel.

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

perhapse you could ask the british government why it is that tax payers money is spent on refurbishing buildings belonging to the royal estate, even if they are only being used for private residence?

I am asking you, because your narrative was, how great they were that they returned money for the refurbishment. It was not their good will only the Queen decision, if they wanted to keep the cottage as a private residence.

Other royal buildings are used by working royals.

end of the road wrote: »

why is doing the interview worse when done during this pandemic?

Because it's really pathetic playing poor me card, when so many people lost so much and struggle with everyday life. How moaning about the title for Archie or battle about socks can resonate with people? It can only make them angry.

Northernlily

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Donald has thrown down the gauntlet to Meghan who is flirting with running on the Democrat ticket in 2024.

He's not a fan.

It would be hilarious if this became a reality.

A head to head between Donald and Meghan would be pay per view

Shows how ridiculous that place is if the Democrats approached her with a serious proposal.

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

I am asking you, because your narrative was, how great they were that they returned money for the refurbishment. It was not their good will only the Queen decision, if they wanted to keep the cottage as a private residence.

Other royal buildings are used by working royals.

well no point in asking me about it, that is the setup there and how things work with the monarky, the tax payer pays for certain things.

JoChervil wrote: »

Because it's really pathetic playing poor me card, when so many people lost so much and struggle with everyday life. How moaning about the title for Archie or battle about socks can resonate with people? It can only make them angry.

it's not her fault others have lost things and struggle.
the fact is she probably wouldn't have done this interview only for the nonsense from certain subsections of the british press.

ceadaoin.

Northernlily wrote: »

Shows how ridiculous that place is if the Democrats approached her with a serious proposal.

Um, what about the current president and vice president?Pretty sure they will be ones running for the democrats and not some random celebrity lol

Northernlily

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Um, what about the current president and vice president?Pretty sure they will be ones running for the democrats and not some random celebrity lol

I don't think the current President will run in 2024. So they may need a new VP candidate on the ticket.