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

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Kate's own family dealt with the press.

She was hounded, mocked for clinging on hoping for a proposal, followed down the street by photographers, had her ancestry traced and mocked, her mother was vilified as a social climber, mocked for being a former air hostess etc.

So, what are you saying? That this is right because the Middleton family took the **** they got? Maybe the Middleton family, being united and wealthy, were better able to cope with all the intrusion. From what I recall, Kate's sister was very popular and was making money on the connection, as I'm sure the Middleton business did well financially out of it.

dark crystal

JoChervil wrote: »

She started her story about Kate, that Kate was upset. She didn’t say what was the reason for her upset. Kate sent flowers as any person with manners would do for their part of input. But it doesn’t make her guilty for the whole situation.

She didn’t want to reveal the whole story. Maybe because it was so trivial like girls socks (so why crying about them?) or maybe it was much more serious like body shaming of Charlotte, so it would be a child abuse. Some coverage was that Charlotte grew and Meghan was angry because it required another session of dress fitting and said, that she got big, what upset Kate, who was in vulnerable state after just giving birth to Prince Louis. If the palace would make the situation straight, would you like your child to be on front of all newspapers as too big?

Sweet Jesus, child abuse!

I give up. Tittle tattle indeed.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

So, what are you saying? That this is right because the Middleton family took the **** they got? Maybe the Middleton family, being united and wealthy, were better able to cope with all the intrusion. From what I recall, Kate's sister was very popular and was making money on the connection, as I'm sure the Middleton business did well financially out of it.

It is nothing to do with money, it is about ignoring negative things written about you.
Everyone in the public eye has things written about them.
I'm sure Meghan, being an actress must have had some experience in this.
Just ignore the press.

dark crystal

JoChervil wrote: »

Because you said so, so we have to believe you, like we have to believe Meghan.

No, but by all means, go ahead and believe the Daily Mail and The Sun instead. Paragons of truth both!

jm08

bubblypop wrote: »

You're still expecting the royal family to lower themselves into 'she said, he said' nonsense with tabloid newspapers.
It doesn't happen and and why would they change that for one person? It's ridiculous and completely unneeded.
She did need counselling though, to help her get over her obsession with herself and what people say about her.
She isn't above criticism , either because she is female nor because she is mixed race.

What is so special that the Royal Family shouldn't ''lower'' themselves to speak the truth.



Sorry, no one should have to put up with the **** that is doled out by the British tabloids.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

So, what are you saying? That this is right because the Middleton family took the **** they got? Maybe the Middleton family, being united and wealthy, were better able to cope with all the intrusion. From what I recall, Kate's sister was very popular and was making money on the connection, as I'm sure the Middleton business did well financially out of it.

Pippa was initially popular because of her famous backside but it wasn’t long before she became the tabloids favourite plaything and was reported on in an obsessive manner not too dissimilar to the royals, just by virtue of being Kate’s sister. She was relentlessly trolled and mocked for looking old and not having a job. She did an interview with American morning tv a few years back talking about the bullying she endured. She seems fairly shy and has never opened her mouth to anyone but she was considered fair game through mere association.

Mrsmum

jm08 wrote: »

So, what are you saying? That this is right because the Middleton family took the **** they got? Maybe the Middleton family, being united and wealthy, were better able to cope with all the intrusion. From what I recall, Kate's sister was very popular and was making money on the connection, as I'm sure the Middleton business did well financially out of it.

You can't keep changing the goalposts. You were the one who said the Palace protected Kate and did 't protect Meghan. Not true. The Palace would have a full time and ridiculous job commenting on the press nonsense every day if they were down that route. They didn't do it for either of them.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

What is so special that the Royal Family shouldn't ''lower'' themselves to speak the truth.



Sorry, no one should have to put up with the **** that is doled out by the British tabloids.

Because they dont, never have and will not in future. That is the way it is and if Meghan doesn't like it then she is free to walk away, which she has done.
But don't blame the royal family for something the press say. Victim blaming much?

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

Keep googling retro. There's pages of it reporting on it if you google. And as the palace/Harry said themselves, much of it was hidden but they were privy to. I read at the time that the palace had to hire additional staff to deal with the increase of abuse directed at her/them. Obviously it was there, and obviously much of it is not in the public domain. As they explicitly stated. You just going to conveniently ignore that though aren't you? As well as the overt racist examples already given to you. Do you have some sort of threshold you have to personally meet or what is the story here?

But they said palace didn't protect them.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

So, what are you saying? That this is right because the Middleton family took the **** they got? Maybe the Middleton family, being united and wealthy, were better able to cope with all the intrusion. From what I recall, Kate's sister was very popular and was making money on the connection, as I'm sure the Middleton business did well financially out of it.

No one has said the press are right. We are simply pointing out that Meghan wasn't singled out and treated unfairly while the others got off lightly, and that the fact she is mixed race is irrelevant.

If only Meghan had googled the RF, she would then know what to expect ...

... Although, apparently she was a big fan of Diana and wrote about William and Kate's wedding, so she should have been somewhat more prepared.

It's just a pity that Harry didn't think to explain any of this to her and left her to deal with all as it happened. But then, he told her to put on make-up and brought her to a royal engagement when she was apparently pregnant and suicidal, so he's obviously as ill-equipped to cope.

Just 2 naive innocents caught up in a maelstrom of misunderstanding.

jm08

JoChervil wrote: »

She started her story about Kate, that Kate was upset. She didn’t say what was the reason for her upset. Kate sent flowers as any person with manners would do for their part of input. But it doesn’t make her guilty for the whole situation.

Kate sent flowers and a note of apology according to Meghan which Meghan accepted.

She didn’t want to reveal the whole story. Maybe because it was so trivial like girls socks (so why crying about them?) or maybe it was much more serious like body shaming of Charlotte, so it would be a child abuse. Some coverage was that Charlotte grew and Meghan was angry because it required another session of dress fitting and said, that she got big, what upset Kate, who was in vulnerable state after just giving birth to Prince Louis. If the palace would make the situation straight, would you like your child to be on front of all newspapers as too big?

Or maybe it was a lot more serious, such as worry about what the tabloids were going to say about William's philandering while Kate was pregnant with their third child.



Seriously, most people think its a good thing when small children grow. Charlotte looked (and looks) like a very healthy child with a healthy weight, so I don't even think even the Daily Mail could make a headline out of her being too big.

Mrsmum

JoChervil wrote: »

But they said palace didn't protect them.

Excellent point.

JoChervil

jm08 wrote: »

Kate sent flowers and a note of apology according to Meghan which Meghan accepted.

She sent a note of apology for her part of the situation, what doesn't mean that Meghan was innocent and didn't have her part in it. And we don't even know for what Kate apologised. And if Meghan forgave her, so why she still moans about it? You forgive and move on or you don't forgive and keep grudge.

jm08 wrote: »

Or maybe it was a lot more serious, such as worry about what the tabloids were going to say about William's philandering while Kate was pregnant with their third child.

Seriously, most people think its a good thing when small children grow. Charlotte looked (and looks) like a very healthy child with a healthy weight, so I don't even think even the Daily Mail could make a headline out of her being too big.

Well, You obviously don't appreciate DM, if they quoted Meghan that Charlotte was too big, it could have hurt a child.

Ms2011

bubblypop wrote: »

Because they dont, never have and will not in future. That is the way it is and if Meghan doesn't like it then she is free to walk away, which she has done.
But don't blame the royal family for something the press say. Victim blaming much?

I dunno, William might want to be a more talkative monarch than his grandmother.

https://www.thecelebpost.com/news/12828-prince-william-to-start-giving-interviews-after-becoming-king

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

I dunno, William might want to be a more talkative monarch than his grandmother.

https://www.thecelebpost.com/news/12828-prince-william-to-start-giving-interviews-after-becoming-king

As is his right when he becomes King, I would imagine that they will stay neutral as possible on political matters and I cant ever imagine them getting into arguments with tabloid newspapers!

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

No, but by all means, go ahead and believe the Daily Mail and The Sun instead. Paragons of truth both!

I don't have to believe them either. I have my own mind and understanding.

So let's take the interview:
- Meghan said there were several talks about the shade of the colour of her child skin, when she was pregnant
- while Harry said it was one conversation about it way before they got married.

So one of them lied because both statements can't be true.

I don't need DM or The Sun to see it...

Leg End Reject

JoChervil wrote: »

I don't have to believe them either. I have my own mind and understanding.

So let's take the interview:
- Meghan said there were several talks about the shade of the colour of her child skin, when she was pregnant
- while Harry said it was one conversation about it way before they got married.

So one of them lied because both statements can't be true.

I don't need DM or The Sun to see it...

It also shows how biased the interview was too, because Oprah didn't even question the discrepancy.

It's amusing that no one considers the possibility that those watching would notice though. I'd like to see them interviewed by the journalist who interviewed Andrew, no prepared answers and details fully analysed.

JoChervil

But aside of all this mess they made with this interview I wonder what would happen, if Prince Charles was skipped and Prince William would become the King?

How would it happen? Would Prince Charles have to abdicate or can he be omitted?

And if Archie would get his title or not in this case? Because if Prince Charles would be omitted, so probably not, because he wouldn't be a grandson of the ruling King. But in case of abdication, what would happen?

Leg End Reject

I don't think Archie will ever be a prince now the Harry is no longer a HRH.

Open to correction, but H & M are minor royals with no privileges because they walked away.

I don't think it matter who becomes king now, because I think either will both cut back on the hangers on and modernise the monarchy to some extent.

Sardonicat

JoChervil wrote: »

But aside of all this mess they made with this interview I wonder what will happen, if Prince Charles was skipped and Prince William would become the King?

How will it happen? Will Prince Charles have to abdicate or can he be omitted?

And if Archie will get his title or not in this case? Because if he will be omitted, so probably not, because he won't be a grandson of the ruling King. But in case of abdication, what will happen?

What puzzles me, if they are not Royals anymore, why do they want/need a title? Why are they still Duke and Duchess? What does it convey to them if they are financially independent? How far down the line of succession is he now? 6/7, is it? What are they titled for? The whole system stinks and this is just bringing into full full focus how utterly ridiculous the concept of a 'Royal Family' is. The Head of State and the Heir Apparent is all anyone should be concerned with, not the Duke of Related-Thanks-For-The-Cash.

Mrsmum

JoChervil wrote: »

But aside of all this mess they made with this interview I wonder what would happen, if Prince Charles was skipped and Prince William would become the King?

How would it happen? Would Prince Charles have to abdicate or can he be omitted?

And if Archie would get his title or not in this case? Because if Prince Charles would be omitted, so probably not, because he wouldn't be a grandson of the ruling King. But in case of abdication, what would happen?

Charles automatically becomes King when The Queen passes on. I don't see him abdicating. He will want his name in the history books imo. Unless ill health makes him unable.

Sardonicat

Mrsmum wrote: »

Charles automatically becomes King when The Queen passes on. I don't see him abdicating. He will want his name in the history books imo. Unless ill health makes him unable.

Is he the oldest Heir ever, now?

The obsession with these two amazes me

Mrsmum

Sardonicat wrote: »

Is he the oldest Heir ever, now?

I'd say so.

cnocbui

Sardonicat wrote: »

What puzzles me, if they are not Royals anymore, why do they want/need a title? Why are they still Duke and Duchess? What does it convey to them if they are financially independent? How far down the line of succession is he now? 6/7, is it? What are they titled for? The whole system stinks and this is just bringing into full full focus how utterly ridiculous the concept of a 'Royal Family' is. The Head of State and the Heir Apparent is all anyone should be concerned with, not the Duke of Related-Thanks-For-The-Cash.

You don't lose a title and it doesn't matter where you live or what you are doing. I know someone who is probably in line for a Baronetcy if they wanted to pusue getting it recognised, but couldn't be arsed.

Sardonicat

cnocbui wrote: »

You don't lose a title and it doesn't matter where you live or what you are doing. I know someone who is probably in line for a Baronetcy if they wanted to pusue getting it recognised, but couldn't be arsed.

My question is, what does a title convey? What is the difference between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Mr. & Mrs. Windsor. Am I supposed to assume the former are superior to the latter? And if so, why, in this day and age, is this nonsense continuing?

Leg End Reject

Sardonicat wrote: »

My question is, what does a title convey? What is the difference between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Mr. & Mrs. Windsor. Am I supposed to assume the former are superior to the latter? And if so, why, in this day and age, is this nonsense continuing?

A title will help promote them in America, otherwise he's a former prince that was in the army and she's a former actress with one major role in a TV series.

Royal titles make them more elite and will attract interest from famous people.

There's no way Oprah would have interviewed Meghan had she not married into the RF, her profile was too low to generate interest and the viewing figures achieved.

Be right back

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The obsession with these two amazes me

Nothing but a distraction from all the doom and gloom over the last year.

If Meghan and Harry want to be taken seriously, they are most definitely going the wrong way about it!

Topgear on Dave

bubblypop wrote: »

As is his right when he becomes King, I would imagine that they will stay neutral as possible on political matters and I cant ever imagine them getting into arguments with tabloid newspapers!

He will indeed. The secret to old Liz's success is that she never ever says anything to anyone.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

The obsession with these two amazes me

Agreed, but I suppose we're somewhat guilty too for even looking at this thread.