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

Captain_Crash

Shelga wrote: »

Car crash interviews don't generate any discussion?

If everyone agrees it was a car crash..... then yeah pretty much!

Debate is what engages people, without it there is less discussion and if there is no discussion it will fall to the wayside quickly!

y0ssar1an22

Shelga wrote: »

Yes, I see that thread generated 357 replies at the time of the interview. This one is at 4700 replies and counting.

Why do you think that is? Genuine question.

if you would indulge me for a minute...

why do you think that is?

Shelga

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Everyone agreeing isn't the basis for an engaging debate. What did you want - thousands of posts with "I agree"? That won't hold people's attention.

That's what I'm saying. There isn't any debate at the moment. People just want to say she is a bad, narcissistic person, rather than the more likely reality of being a flawed individual with both good and bad traits.

I've said I find how spoiled they are to be mega cringey. But I just don't get what it is about the woman that has people writing dozens of posts a day condemning her. Why does she get Piers Morgan so angry?

Why do they not get tired of Meghan and Harry the way they do about other stories?

Leg End Reject

Shelga wrote: »

That's what I'm saying. There isn't any debate at the moment. People just want to say she is a bad, narcissistic person, rather than the more likely reality of being a flawed individual with both good and bad traits.

I've said I find how spoiled they are to be mega cringey. But I just don't get what it is about the woman that has people writing dozens of posts a day condemning her. Why does she get Piers Morgan so angry?

Why do they not get tired of Meghan and Harry the way they do about other stories?

There are people who disagree, some can't post anymore and some are less vocal. The thread was resurrected recently and Philip's death has added a new dimension to the debate.

Shelga

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

if you would indulge me for a minute...

why do you think that is?

I'm really not sure! I think people felt more of an attachment to Harry, with the much-discussed funeral images of him walking behind the coffin of Diana, watching him grow up, seeing him go through a wild phase and now settling down with Meghan. I don't think anyone ever really gave much of a sh*t about Andrew, in comparison.

So I guess people think it's sad that he has rejected life as a royal to go and live with Meghan in LA. And it is, and I can see that POV.

But why does the Royal Family even exist in the first place?! That's what I always come back to. Expecting a life of duty from all of its members is just... odd. What if someone can't or doesn't want to perform those duties? Should they do it just because they were born into a certain family?

And yet I do admire the Queen for her lifetime of immense duty, and Philip, for that matter. I'm not some anti-royal extremist. The Brits love them and they're not going anywhere. But not everyone is cut out for that type of duty, and I think that's ok.

Leg End Reject

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

if you would indulge me for a minute...

why do you think that is?

Here's one you missed, Shelga.

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Here's one you missed, Shelga.

Ignore, you've answered!

Leg End Reject

Shelga wrote: »

I'm really not sure! I think people felt more of an attachment to Harry, with the much-discussed funeral images of him walking behind the coffin of Diana, watching him grow up, seeing him go through a wild phase and now settling down with Meghan. I don't think anyone ever really gave much of a sh*t about Andrew, in comparison.

So I guess people think it's sad that he has rejected life as a royal to go and live with Meghan in LA. And it is, and I can see that POV.

But why does the Royal Family even exist in the first place?! That's what I always come back to. Expecting a life of duty from all of its members is just... odd. What if someone can't or doesn't want to perform those duties? Should they do it just because they were born into a certain family?

And yet I do admire the Queen for her lifetime of immense duty, and Philip, for that matter. I'm not some anti-royal extremist. The Brits love them and they're not going anywhere. But not everyone is cut out for that type of duty, and I think that's ok.

Meghan had a choice, she arranged to meet Harry, idolised his mother, wrote about Kate and William's wedding yet claims she had no idea what she was getting into because she never googled Harry or the reality of royal life.

Does that seem plausible?

Shelga

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Meghan had a choice, she arranged to meet Harry, idolised his mother, wrote about Kate and William's wedding yet claims she had no idea what she was getting into because she never googled Harry or the reality of royal life.

Does that seem plausible?

No, of course it doesn't! :pac: That was not believable. But who is honest about the extent to which they stalk potential dates?

Basically, I agree she was very "poor me" without acknowledging any of the huge benefits. I'm still not sure to what extent she planned that out, and how much of it is her being genuinely delusional about what royal life would entail. At the very least, she's a bit dim.

But why do you think she gets people's backs up so much? I'm not even talking about this thread- some British people seem to absolutely despise her. I just don't know why. If I was William and Kate, I think I'd be stressed and disappointed over the last few weeks, with the public nature of it all, but I like to think I'd try to see it from all sides. Making situations completely black and white rarely makes anything better, and will just widen the rift. Yes, this may take a huge amount of patience and understanding on their parts, and I would definitely be hurt by the hugely public nature of the interview, and the accusations it contained.

Is there absolutely nothing that needs to change about how the royal family runs the show or how the British media treats famous people over there?

y0ssar1an22

Shelga wrote: »

I'm really not sure! I think people felt more of an attachment to Harry, with the much-discussed funeral images of him walking behind the coffin of Diana, watching him grow up, seeing him go through a wild phase and now settling down with Meghan. I don't think anyone ever really gave much of a sh*t about Andrew, in comparison.

So I guess people think it's sad that he has rejected life as a royal to go and live with Meghan in LA. And it is, and I can see that POV.

But why does the Royal Family even exist in the first place?! That's what I always come back to. Expecting a life of duty from all of its members is just... odd. What if someone can't or doesn't want to perform those duties? Should they do it just because they were born into a certain family?

And yet I do admire the Queen for her lifetime of immense duty, and Philip, for that matter. I'm not some anti-royal extremist. The Brits love them and they're not going anywhere. But not everyone is cut out for that type of duty, and I think that's ok.

my thoughts on harry are simple...if you're out you're out. its not sad or something to celebrate, just a fact of life.

as far as i know, it still exits cos the income generated is more than the cost.

Leg End Reject

I don't get the point of a powerless constitutional monarchy, or the need for people to bow and cutesy.

I think Meghan is being criticised because it was so insincere. I don't believe for a minute that they didn't see the questions beforehand or that there wasn't retakes, I don't believe Oprah's exaggerated shocked expression. I think it highlights cultural differences in America, the "Jeremy Kyle shock factor".

But the biggest issue is the racism claim, they both had a different version of that. The claim that they didn't want to identify the person because it would hurt them is risible. She said it was said several times when she was pregnant, Harry said it was once before they got married. Oprah never questioned that so it was biased.

After the interview aired Oprah said that Harry clarified it wasn't the queen or Philip. So now, the rest of the family are suspected racists and none of them are able to speak out.

Harry brought her to a royal engagement because no one in "the firm" would help her while she was pregnant and suicidal? Apparently picking up a phone to the mental health charities Harry is involved with, or a doctor, was beyond their capabilities? So they went to a royal engagement where she cried all night, but no photos were taken by paparazzi with her face puffy, tear-streaked and her make-up ruined?

Married 3 days before the "public spectacle"?

It was a disgraceful, self-serving interview.

ETA: I forgot about whinging that they lost titles and funding. They wanted the perks but not the work.

Madeleine Birchfield

When did the British royal family become a celebrity family? None of this would have happened if the British royal family stayed out of the limelight like the Belgian or Danish royals and the British media stopped covering them like every other media celebrity.

kowloon

Leg End Reject wrote: »

He was a laughing stock! Not able to sweat, pizza hut, his indignation and the fact that he thought it went well. Completely oblivious and convinced of his own importance.

It was Pizza Express, in a place that didn't have a Pizza Express on the date in question. Get your facts straight!

Itssoeasy

Shelga wrote: »

I'm really not sure! I think people felt more of an attachment to Harry, with the much-discussed funeral images of him walking behind the coffin of Diana, watching him grow up, seeing him go through a wild phase and now settling down with Meghan. I don't think anyone ever really gave much of a sh*t about Andrew, in comparison.

So I guess people think it's sad that he has rejected life as a royal to go and live with Meghan in LA. And it is, and I can see that POV.

But why does the Royal Family even exist in the first place?! That's what I always come back to. Expecting a life of duty from all of its members is just... odd. What if someone can't or doesn't want to perform those duties? Should they do it just because they were born into a certain family?

And yet I do admire the Queen for her lifetime of immense duty, and Philip, for that matter. I'm not some anti-royal extremist. The Brits love them and they're not going anywhere. But not everyone is cut out for that type of duty, and I think that's ok.

Well from what I can gather the British public became very protective of William and Harry after their mother died in Paris and that’s fair enough I suppose. And btw despite what some have said it wasn’t Harry that was forced to do anything, it was more William that had to encourage to walk behind the coffin by prince Phillip.

I remember hearing that they wanted to step away from the royal family and I said work away kid. They wanted a normal life and that’s fine, but doing an interview with Oprah on worldwide TV does kind of undercut your assertion that you want a private life. For example members of the Swedish royal family have moved to America and seem to not cause hassle, they just live their life’s while having some status removed.

The British royal family exists because like other European royal families the people want them.

Leg End Reject

kowloon wrote: »

It was Pizza Express, in a place that didn't have a Pizza Express on the date in question. Get your facts straight!

If you're trying to make me uncomfortable you should know I don't sweat.

Itssoeasy

Madeleine Birchfield wrote: »

When did the British royal family become a celebrity family? None of this would have happened if the British royal family stayed out of the limelight like the Belgian or Danish royals and the British media stopped covering them like every other media celebrity.

Are the danish royal family out of the limelight ? They along along with their Scandinavian cousins aren’t out of the limelight, they just seem more relaxed. The British royal family seem more rigid in comparison.

kowloon

Leg End Reject wrote: »

If you're trying to make me uncomfortable you should know I don't sweat.

Then you haven't tried the spicy meat lovers pizza with cheese jalapeno bites.

y0ssar1an22

Madeleine Birchfield wrote: »

When did the British royal family become a celebrity family? None of this would have happened if the British royal family stayed out of the limelight like the Belgian or Danish royals and the British media stopped covering them like every other media celebrity.

thats like comparing FC Copenhagen to Liverpool/utd.

think at one point 25% of the world's population was under their rule.

as to why they are a celebrity family these days....can you explain why the kardashians are a celebrity family? some things just make no sense

probably media, whatever sells

expectationlost

Madeleine Birchfield wrote: »

When did the British royal family become a celebrity family? None of this would have happened if the British royal family stayed out of the limelight like the Belgian or Danish royals and the British media stopped covering them like every other media celebrity.

is there still a omerta on reporting about Belgian/Danish royals?

NSAman

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Are the danish royal family out of the limelight ? They along along with their Scandinavian cousins aren’t out of the limelight, they just seem more relaxed. The British royal family seem more rigid in comparison.

Oh come on... it may seems that way, but didn’t Charles want to be someone’s tampax?

BettyS

Sure look, I am sure that Gayle will let us know how the family broke the news to Meghan and Harry in the coming days...

Leg End Reject

BettyS wrote: »

Sure look, I am sure that Gayle will let us know how the family broke the news to Meghan and Harry in the coming days...

I'd say a member of staff was tasked with the job.

Itssoeasy

Leg End Reject wrote: »

If you're trying to make me uncomfortable you should know I don't sweat.

I see what you did there.

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I don't get the point of a powerless constitutional monarchy, or the need for people to bow and cutesy.

I think Meghan is being criticised because it was so insincere. I don't believe for a minute that they didn't see the questions beforehand or that there wasn't retakes, I don't believe Oprah's exaggerated shocked expression. I think it highlights cultural differences in America, the "Jeremy Kyle shock factor".

But the biggest issue is the racism claim, they both had a different version of that. The claim that they didn't want to identify the person because it would hurt them is risible. She said it was said several times when she was pregnant, Harry said it was once before they got married. Oprah never questioned that so it was biased.

After the interview aired Oprah said that Harry clarified it wasn't the queen or Philip. So now, the rest of the family are suspected racists and none of them are able to speak out.

Harry brought her to a royal engagement because no one in "the firm" would help her while she was pregnant and suicidal? Apparently picking up a phone to the mental health charities Harry is involved with, or a doctor, was beyond their capabilities? So they went to a royal engagement where she cried all night, but no photos were taken by paparazzi with her face puffy, tear-streaked and her make-up ruined?

Married 3 days before the "public spectacle"?

It was a disgraceful, self-serving interview.

ETA: I forgot about whinging that they lost titles and funding. They wanted the perks but not the work.

What are you trying to argue. Because of the different versions of how many times the colour of the baby was discussed means that it didn't happen at all?

Itssoeasy

Madeleine Birchfield wrote: »

When did the British royal family become a celebrity family? None of this would have happened if the British royal family stayed out of the limelight like the Belgian or Danish royals and the British media stopped covering them like every other media celebrity.

When ? Maybe when Diana entered the firm and then the nineties when she and others left. Oh yeah Belgium has a royal family that everyone seems to forget. From what I’ve seen of the danish royal family they seem sound enough.

walshb

jm08 wrote: »

What are you trying to argue. Because of the different versions of how many times the colour of the baby was discussed means that it didn't happen at all?

The more important question. Did what happen?

A bull**** contrived nonsense they spouted to try sensationalize and damage..

Both with their own versions of this contrived nonsense...

jm08

walshb wrote: »

The more important question. Did what happen?

A bull**** contrived nonsense they spouted to try sensationalize and damage..

Both with their own versions of this contrived nonsense...

Did someone question what colour the baby would be or did they not?

Itssoeasy

jm08 wrote: »

Did someone question what colour the baby would be or did they not?

We don’t know because there two versions of it. It either was once prior to the marriage where according to Prince Harry it was mentioned once, and Meghan where she said Harry conveyed the conversation to her and it happened serveral times while she was pregnant. The stories don’t line up because either Harry is downplaying when and how often it was allegedly said or Meghan miss understood what and when Harry told her. And personally I think an allegation of this seriousness needs to have the facts and claiming racism when the two people telling it aren’t telling the same story is bizarre.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

Did someone question what colour the baby would be or did they not?

There was a vague allegation, but no specific detail about what was actually said or who said.

Common enough among families to speculate about babies:
"Will they have their mother's red hair?"
"Let's hope they don't inherit the O'Brien nose!"
"I wonder will they have brown eyes?"

Unless we know what was actually said, and the context in which it was said, we don't know if it was racist. However, there are now a lot of suspected racists in the royal family based on 2 contradictory versions of events.

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

There was a vague allegation, but no specific detail about what was actually said or who said.

Common enough among families to speculate about babies:
"Will they have their mother's red hair?"
"Let's hope they don't inherit the O'Brien nose!"
"I wonder will they have brown eyes?"

Unless we know what was actually said, and the context in which it was said, we don't know if it was racist. However, there are now a lot of suspected racists in the royal family based on 2 contradictory versions of events.

You are waffling now. There was nothing vague about the accusation that there were questions about what colour the baby would be.


And no way is wondering what colour the baby will be is the same as wondering about the colour of their hair?