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

walshb

Leg End Reject wrote: »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14411884/meghan-markle-prince-harry-wedding-certificate-three-days/

Scroll down to the bit in the blue box and a reference to Meghan's "truth".

Of all that they said in the interview, it was Harry’s ridiculous and petty claim that his “family” are trapped that was the worst. His father and brother are trapped. STFU, Harry....

His family are the monarchy. Nothing to do with being trapped..

Leg End Reject

valoren wrote: »

Found the role of a working Royal too stifling and the press intrusion too invasive but being the President of the United States won't invol e anything like that I suppose?

Maybe she finds the power intoxicating? It's a position with more power than any in the royal family.

BettyS

valoren wrote: »

Found the role of a working Royal too stifling and the press intrusion too invasive but being the President of the United States won't involve anything like that I suppose?

You have career politicians with ambitions on the Presidency but she is considering a tilt at the role? This belongs in the Kanye West bracket of narcissism.

It all seems strategic if Meghan does go for presidency

Itssoeasy

JoChervil wrote: »

You really try to make her stupid or naive. While she is not. All this her talk about titles was to secure it for Archie in future. She even mentioned this protocol by King George V, so she knew exactly that he is entitled to it, once Charles will become a King. But years ago Charles wanted to limited the amount of titles to the main line. And he was considering it way before Harry met Meghan, so the race had nothing to do with it. I think what she tried to do, was to stop it. Because if this protocol was changed now, she would blame it for racism. So now RF has to think twice before they do it or if they do it. She is smart enough. Accusing her that she misinterpreted things is actually offending her intelligence.

And what about that she never googled Harry on line?

I think Charles wanted to go the way the Scandinavian royal families are going in that there’s a royal house and a royal family. So it wasn’t a rule change to the 1917 rule as much as it seems like the way royal families in Europe are adapting to not seem like a waste of money. It’s limiting the number of working royals basically as Prince Andrew’s daughters aren’t working royals and there apparently were bad feelings over them not being working royals. They still have their titles. It was the fews things were race was alleged as being behind decisions when it’s clearly not came off bad IMO.

dogbert27

valoren wrote: »

Found the role of a working Royal too stifling and the press intrusion too invasive but being the President of the United States won't involve anything like that I suppose?

You have career politicians with ambitions on the Presidency but she is considering a tilt at the role? This belongs in the Kanye West bracket of narcissism.

Will they be expecting the RF to fund her campaign trail? :pac:

superflyninja

end of the road wrote: »

as it stands she technically didn't lie about anything, rather she made 1 or potentially more incorrect statements.
she made an incorrect interpretation about what a practice session for her wedding actually was, or if not that a probable blessing, and seemed to misunderstand the situation over titles and security once no longer a senior member of the rf.

Ah come on now seriously. You are just trolling at this point right?

Lets just imagine you are correct. That Markle is an utter moron and did misinterpret and confuse all those things. You still think its ok for her to imply her kids didn't get the titles she wanted and the security because of racism?
Or to come out and do this interview throwing a racist cloud over the RF with vague "someone said something" claims?
Or to say the media were bullying and racist to her, they wanted out of the spotlight and then turn around launching podcasts, tv shows and doing a tell all interview with Oprah effin Winfrey?
You really are jumping through a lot of hoops to protect Saint Markle.


And yes if someone is really badly wrong about something(the private "wedding") its 100% fair to call into question other highly suspect statements they make during the interview.

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think Charles wanted to go the way the Scandinavian royal families are going in that there’s a royal house and a royal family. So it wasn’t a rule change to the 1917 rule as much as it seems like the way royal families in Europe are adapting to not seem like a waste of money. It’s limiting the number of working royals basically as Prince Andrew’s daughters aren’t working royals and there apparently were bad feelings over them not being working royals. They still have their titles. It was the fews things were race was alleged as being behind decisions when it’s clearly not came off bad IMO.

The change in the title of Prince and Princess was changed back in 1917 to be for the children and grandchildren of the monarch and the children of the direct line to the throne. Therefore, of the Queen’s grandchildren, only Williams can be a Prince or Princess from birth.
In 2015 the succession rules were updated to remove the gender rule, meaning that if Charlotte was Williams first born, she would be his heir and not George.

walshb

It’s simple:

In their rush and madness to slate the RF, they didn’t give a fook what was correct and accurate...

They wanted maximum damage and maximum exposure...

The race issue, suicide issue, prince’s title issue etc.....didn’t matter a damn to them..

Neyite

end of the road wrote: »

as it stands she technically didn't lie about anything, rather she made 1 or potentially more incorrect statements.
she made an incorrect interpretation about what a practice session for her wedding actually was, or if not that a probable blessing, and seemed to misunderstand the situation over titles and security once no longer a senior member of the rf.

She's been married before. Plus Americans do a big celebration for the rehearsal dinner with family. Plus she's an actor - actors know the difference between a rehearsal and the main shoot better than any of us.

There is no way she misunderstood this.

What she did misunderstand or rather have a lack of knowledge about is UK legality around weddings. She assumed that because you can get married in your back yard by your buddy in the US, that it can be done in the UK. Except it can't. And not by an Archbishop of CoE. And certainly not when you are marrying an heir to the throne of one of the most prominent monarchies in the world, and who's granny is technically the Archbishops' boss. But being an American who was utterly disinterested in the UK,Royal Protocol or even the significance of the link the CoE has with the monarchy, it's understandable that she thought that lie would stand.

There's no way that she got where she is today - with a lengthy list of 31 acting credits under her belt, without knowing the difference between a rehearsal and the live shoot.

Leg End Reject

It should also be pointed out that the archbishop wouldn't have allowed her to think she was married. He would have a responsibility to hold up the sanctity of a church wedding.

Purple Mountain

Neyite wrote: »

She's been married before. Plus Americans do a big celebration for the rehearsal dinner with family. Plus she's an actor - actors know the difference between a rehearsal and the main shoot better than any of us.

There is no way she misunderstood this.

What she did misunderstand or rather have a lack of knowledge about is UK legality around weddings. She assumed that because you can get married in your back yard by your buddy in the US, that it can be done in the UK. Except it can't. And not by an Archbishop of CoE. And certainly not when you are marrying an heir to the throne of one of the most prominent monarchies in the world, and who's granny is technically the Archbishops' boss. But being an American who was utterly disinterested in the UK,Royal Protocol or even the significance of the link the CoE has with the monarchy, it's understandable that she thought that lie would stand.

There's no way that she got where she is today - with a lengthy list of 31 acting credits under her belt, without knowing the difference between a rehearsal and the live shoot.

Would you think it's possible that she didn't think they were actually married in the legal and traditional sense but that she viewed the vow exchange as being "married" in a romantic and spiritual way?
I just think that her use of the term "married" is being taken as the absolute lieteral meaning but maybe in H+Ms head the vow exchange and potential blessing was a more "married" feeling to them than the actual register signing and the vows that they would have had written for them by the establishment.

JoChervil

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Would you think it's possible that she didn't think they were actually married in the legal and traditional sense but that she viewed the vow exchange as being "married" in a romantic and spiritual way?
I just think that her use of the term "married" is being taken as the absolute lieteral meaning but maybe in H+Ms head the vow exchange and potential blessing was a more "married" feeling to them than the actual register signing and the vows that they would have had written for them by the establishment.

So why she needed Archbishop for it, who couldn't have given them his blessing, if it was to be only a spiritual, not religious thing?

Purple Mountain

JoChervil wrote: »

So why she needed Archbishop for it, who couldn't have given them his blessing, if it was to be only a spiritual, not religious thing?

To kill 2 birds with one stone?
I definitely think it was a f you to the monarchy that they had a "moment" with the Bishop that not even the Queen knew about.

superflyninja

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Would you think it's possible that she didn't think they were actually married in the legal and traditional sense but that she viewed the vow exchange as being "married" in a romantic and spiritual way?
I just think that her use of the term "married" is being taken as the absolute lieteral meaning but maybe in H+Ms head the vow exchange and potential blessing was a more "married" feeling to them than the actual register signing and the vows that they would have had written for them by the establishment.

Yes I think that is probably what she meant. As a standalone statement, I've no problem with it. The problems arise though when it is taken in context with all the other things she said in the interview.

Purple Mountain

superflyninja wrote: »

Yes I think that is probably what she meant. As a standalone statement, I've no problem with it. The problems arise though when it is taken in context with all the other things she said in the interview.

I agree 100%.
I wouldn't trust the gospel from either of them now but I do think that one statement was taken as a different meaning culturally.
But really, when they say the furore it caused, they should have issued a direct statement clarifying their position, instead people are more suspicious of them now!

irishblessing

Neyite wrote: »

She's been married before. Plus Americans do a big celebration for the rehearsal dinner with family. Plus she's an actor - actors know the difference between a rehearsal and the main shoot better than any of us.

There is no way she misunderstood this.

What she did misunderstand or rather have a lack of knowledge about is UK legality around weddings. She assumed that because you can get married in your back yard by your buddy in the US, that it can be done in the UK. Except it can't. And not by an Archbishop of CoE. And certainly not when you are marrying an heir to the throne of one of the most prominent monarchies in the world, and who's granny is technically the Archbishops' boss. But being an American who was utterly disinterested in the UK,Royal Protocol or even the significance of the link the CoE has with the monarchy, it's understandable that she thought that lie would stand.

There's no way that she got where she is today - with a lengthy list of 31 acting credits under her belt, without knowing the difference between a rehearsal and the live shoot.

I think it's you, and everyone else here who spends far too much of their time assuming to know what she thinks, and twisting it into some negative connotation. She never used the word "legal" in saying they got married, so why are so many making such a blood sport out of this. It's ridiculous. Obviously, it wasn't a rehearsal. And obviously, when she spoke about their special vows now hanging on their wall and that it was basically a ceremony that was just for them, she's talking about a meaningful and private exchange of vows. Why is this so hard to understand? Clearly, in their eyes the private vows were the ones that mattered. It's not uncommon in the US, where personal blessings are quite meaningful. Marriage for many people is not the legal piece of paper, they are spoken vows between two people who love each other. Some people need to let it go.

jm08

Neyite wrote: »

She wouldn't last two minutes in politics without running to Oprah's sofa to cry that everyone is racist and mean because they are actually asking her to explain the details of her political manifesto.

Ah, you don't know that she majored in International Studies in college and interned in the US Embassy in Buenos Aires. She also studied in Madrid for a couple of months. Seemingly in University, she considered a political career.


This is an informative profile of her from her college years.


https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ent-meghan-markle-northwestern-20180509-story.html

Purple Mountain

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Would you think it's possible that she didn't think they were actually married in the legal and traditional sense but that she viewed the vow exchange as being "married" in a romantic and spiritual way?..........

Nope, not a hope.

superflyninja

irishblessing wrote: »

I think it's you, and everyone else here who spends far too much of their time assuming to know what she thinks, and twisting it into some negative connotation. She never used the word "legal" in saying they got married, so why are so many making such a blood sport out of this. It's ridiculous. Obviously, it wasn't a rehearsal. And obviously, when she spoke about their special vows now hanging on their wall and that it was basically a ceremony that was just for them, she's talking about a meaningful and private exchange of vows. Why is this so hard to understand? Clearly, in their eyes the private vows were the ones that mattered. It's not uncommon in the US, where personal blessings are quite meaningful. Marriage for many people is not the legal piece of paper, they are spoken vows between two people who love each other. Some people need to let it go.

Because she is accusing the RF of racism. She is suggesting the RF withheld titles and security based on race. Thats why people are looking at this. They are claims that hold a huge amount of weight. Especially in the current climate.
Can you not see the link between what she said about her "private ceremony" and the other claims?
At all?
For the most part, we are not speculating about what she thinks, we are commenting on what she said and did.
Why are you so determined to make out she is such an angel in this? You are ignoring so many pieces of info. You accuse us of twisting things to suit a negative view, when that is in fact what you are doing, but in the opposite way.

Im not interested in H&M or the RF. However, I think she is highly manipulative and lying through her teeth. I am very interested in how this plays out.

JoChervil

superflyninja wrote: »

Yes I think that is probably what she meant. As a standalone statement, I've no problem with it. The problems arise though when it is taken in context with all the other things she said in the interview.

Also how she said it.

Leg End Reject

JoChervil wrote: »

Also how she said it.

She claimed they were actually married by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a private ceremony 3 days before the wedding. The actual wedding was just a public spectacle.

The Archbishop is unlikely to facilitate a "spiritual exchange of personal vows" between the grandson of the head of the COE and his fiancee, regardless of whatever happens in America.

JoChervil

Purple Mountain wrote: »

To kill 2 birds with one stone?
I definitely think it was a f you to the monarchy that they had a "moment" with the Bishop that not even the Queen knew about.

Frankly, I don't believe it even happened. I believe they had rehearsals. But the whole intimate marriage is for me a made up story aftermath. Back then, she wouldn't have a need to f RF. In this footage Harry looked like ashamed person trying to hide. And this "Just a three of us", so arranged.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

I think it's you, and everyone else here who spends far too much of their time assuming to know what she thinks, and twisting it into some negative connotation. She never used the word "legal" in saying they got married, so why are so many making such a blood sport out of this. It's ridiculous. Obviously, it wasn't a rehearsal. And obviously, when she spoke about their special vows now hanging on their wall and that it was basically a ceremony that was just for them, she's talking about a meaningful and private exchange of vows. Why is this so hard to understand? Clearly, in their eyes the private vows were the ones that mattered. It's not uncommon in the US, where personal blessings are quite meaningful. Marriage for many people is not the legal piece of paper, they are spoken vows between two people who love each other. Some people need to let it go.

She said they got married and then specifically said 'no one knows that'. Obviously the viewers were meant to believe that this was not only a wedding but it was kept secret between the three of them until now. If it was a 'blessing' or rehearsal there would be absolutely no need to keep it between themselves.

She's either lying or trying to manipulate the viewers and get as many 'Meghan's shock revelations...' headlines as possible out of this PR stunt and brand launch.

Ms2011

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

She said they got married and then specifically said 'no one knows that'. Obviously the viewers were meant to believe that this was not only a wedding but it was kept secret between the three of them until now. If it was a 'blessing' or rehearsal there would be absolutely no need to keep it between themselves.

She's either lying or trying to manipulate the viewers and get as many 'Meghan's shock revelations...' headlines as possible out of this PR stunt and brand launch.

Depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on. I never thought for a minute it was a wedding in the official sense of the word, merely an exchange of vows they didn't feel they wanted to share with the world. I think they kept it to themselves for the same reason they didn't exchange the earlier vows in public, it was not just something between themselves.

Purple Mountain

Ms2011 wrote: »

Depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on. I never thought for a minute it was a wedding in the official sense of the word, merely an exchange of vows they didn't feel they wanted to share with the world. I think they kept it to themselves for the same reason they didn't exchange the earlier vows in public, it was not just something between themselves.

As much as I can't stand either of them after that whinefest interview, I concur with this statement!

Neyite

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Would you think it's possible that she didn't think they were actually married in the legal and traditional sense but that she viewed the vow exchange as being "married" in a romantic and spiritual way?
I just think that her use of the term "married" is being taken as the absolute lieteral meaning but maybe in H+Ms head the vow exchange and potential blessing was a more "married" feeling to them than the actual register signing and the vows that they would have had written for them by the establishment.

They can believe what they want. It doesn't make it real though...

This is exactly what she said: “You know, three days before our wedding we got married. “No-one knows that, but we called the Archbishop and we just said, 'Look, this thing, this spectacle, is for the world, but we want our union between us' "So the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.".”

She's saying they got married three days before their wedding That's fairly unambiguous. When someone says "we got married" it's fairly clear that they didn't mean that they stood in their garden and said nice things to each other.

Next she's saying that it was a secret that only three of them knew about. That is problematic because while it's fine to say that she and Harry were just exchanging vows, to say they rang the Archbishop to arrange it, is making it sound like they explained to him that they wanted a secret wedding and that he went along with this. As he says in the link below, agreeing to do a secret wedding would mean him committing a serious criminal offence.

He's set the record straight on that, but has not been drawn as to whether he did actually meet them in that "backyard" (lol, Kensington Palace grounds a 'backyard') on that date, only that he met them a few times prior to the wedding, or what was discussed - he's bound by the confidentiality of his job as a cleric so he can't say much other than to refute the criminal bit.

jm08 wrote: »

Ah, you don't know that she majored in International Studies in college and interned in the US Embassy in Buenos Aires. She also studied in Madrid for a couple of months. Seemingly in University, she considered a political career.

This is an informative profile of her from her college years.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ent-meghan-markle-northwestern-20180509-story.html

No I didn't know that but it doesn't change my opinion. She might have the qualifications for it, but she doesn't have the thick hide a politician needs to do the actual job. She does have the obfuscation of truth down to a tee though.

MoonUnit75

Ms2011 wrote: »

Depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on. I never thought for a minute it was a wedding in the official sense of the word, merely an exchange of vows they didn't feel they wanted to share with the world. I think they kept it to themselves for the same reason they didn't exchange the earlier vows in public, it was not just something between themselves.

'We got married' leaves very little room for doubt. It's a legal bond between two people. It's like saying to a Garda 'no one knows this but I called up the minister for transport and had a private driving test and he gave me a driver's licence'.

Why do you think the archbishop had to publicly declare he didn't marry them or break any laws when he signed the actual wedding certificate three days later? She forced him to do that with her story, which I think any reasonable person would agree was deliberately misleading.

Neyite

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

'We got married' leaves very little room for doubt. It's a legal bond between two people. It's like saying to a Garda 'no one knows this but I called up the minister for transport and had a private driving test and he gave me a driver's licence'.

Why do you think the archbishop had to publicly declare he didn't marry them or break any laws when he signed the actual wedding certificate three days later? She forced him to do that with her story, which I think any reasonable person would agree was deliberately misleading.

I should try that the next time I'm stopped with an out of date tax disc "sorry Guard, Nobody actually knows this but we actually renewed it three days before it was overdue. I called up the Department of Transport and said, this thing, this spectacle is only if I get stopped by a Garda, but I have my real tax disc issued by Eamonn Ryan who came to our backyard to do it for us on my wall at home. Ok it's done in crayon, but it's our real disc.."

Ms2011

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

'We got married' leaves very little room for doubt. It's a legal bond between two people. It's like saying to a Garda 'no one knows this but I called up the minister for transport and had a private driving test and he gave me a driver's licence'.

Why do you think the archbishop had to publicly declare he didn't marry them or break any laws when he signed the actual wedding certificate three days later? She forced him to do that with her story, which I think any reasonable person would agree was deliberately misleading.

We got married with just 3 people there leaves no doubt that it wasn't legal, no need for anyone to publicly declare anything, anyone who has ever had anything to do with a wedding knows you need to have 2 witnesses to make a marriage legal unless of course you're trying to find a hiding meaning where there isn't one.

superflyninja

This is all that "my truth" nonsense. Maybe she feels that her real marriage ceremony was 3 days before the official one.
Fine.
But she says she got married. Objectively, that isnt true.