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

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No, she moved out like a month after moving in or something like that.

I understand that she is still there. They spent Christmas with Andrew and Fergie.

dark crystal

Be right back wrote: »

Am I right in saying that it has been the Queen, their children and Harry who have released written statements about his death?

Don't know and don't really care. Just find the hypocrisy surrounding the framing around Harry and his brother's tributes rather amusing and utterly predictable.

Nigel Farage was dribbling over Twitter earlier about how disrespectful Harry and his wife's statement was, while in the same tweet, opined how unwelcome Harry was at his own grandfather's funeral. Funny, Farage is usually such a welcoming chap as well...

jm08

walshb wrote: »

One side is having a go..

The RF have said nothing offensive or derogatory in retaliation. They have kept dignified and solemn.

Its quite interesting to read a summary of the interview on BBC website. From that summary it is clear that their big gripe is with the English press. Harry has always hated them because of the way they treated his mother and the rest of the RF. Harry says that Charles has made a deal with the press to go easy on him.


They said in the interview that the English/British press is racist and bigoted. Harry seemingly said that when he told a friend what they were doing, the friend warned him that the press would destroy them. Looks like the friend was right.



Their issue with the RF is not that they are racist, but that they failed to defend Megan when they attacked her. My guess about how dark the baby was going to be was more to do with the racist British press than being actually racist.



Of course the British press turned the whole narrative about the racist RF to redirect the criticism from themselves. It would be i formative to know what the reading material of the anti-MH posters here is. Any volunteers?

Leg End Reject

I've just seen Andrew speaking outside the church. I thought he was all but banished?

I really hope his father's funeral won't be used as a way to get him back into public life.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Look it up, no clutching at all.

HRH Diana, Princess of Wales became Diana, Princess of Wales. There were a lot of reports of her being upset at having to curtsy to Charles and William promising to reinstate her status when he was king.

Maybe research before you sneer because it's accurate.

The Royal Family are well aware of their past mistakes and that time has moved on rapidly. This curtesy to him, her, them will not gain them positive feedback.

They recognise that what was ok in Diana/Charles era won’t fly now at all.

People remember ultimately that Harry walked as a lonely small child behind his Mam as the world watched.

It’s perfectly understandable that he protects those he holds dear.

jm08

Ms2011 wrote: »

Won't be where?

I'm talking about where he might be staying while in England.

They have a house in Windsor.

NSAman

jm08 wrote: »

They have a house in Windsor.

Is it big enough?

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

One of Andrew’s girls lives there. Eugenie, I think.

No. They moved out. Back in with the parents I think.

Edit: Moved back to a cottage in Kensington Palace. Looks like the reason was because M&H were shipping all their stuff out to California. Its now vacant so as a former army person, Harry should be able to camp out for a few days there. Very handy to Windsor as well.

jm08

NSAman wrote: »

Is it big enough?

Pretty big. Probably 6+ bedrooms.

Its 4 bedrooms.

Itssoeasy

anewme wrote: »

The Royal Family are well aware of their past mistakes and that time has moved on rapidly. This curtesy to him, her, them will not gain them positive feedback.

They recognise that what was ok in Diana/Charles era won’t fly now at all.

People remember ultimately that Harry walked as a lonely small child behind his Mam as the world watched.

It’s perfectly understandable that he protects those he holds dear.

And btw end of the road just so you know this isn’t me being some mad monarchist like you’ve alleged to many in this thread. I’m Irish and have no allegiance or loyalty to the British(or any other royal family) despite what you have claimed.

And just for historical accuracy, it was Prince William and not Harry who had to be encouraged to walk behind the coffin. So let’s put that false narrative to bed.

Also, I would take it as given that all posters in this thread would condemn racism without question ? With the assumption that all posters agree with that is it not right that such a serious thing as alleged racism is held to a high standard given the seriousness of such a claim. Let’s be honest there are not insignificant inconsistencies between Harry and Megan’s recounting of the alleged racist incident from the Oprah interview. It was said in this thread that a person of colour wouldn’t misremember a racist comment and I agree they wouldn’t but somewhere Harry and Meghan have because their recollections go beyond a difference of interpretation IMO.

jm08

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And btw end of the road just so you know this isn’t me being some mad monarchist like you’ve alleged to many in this thread. I’m Irish and have no allegiance or loyalty to the British(or any other royal family) despite what you have claimed.

And just for historical accuracy, it was Prince William and not Harry who had to be encouraged to walk behind the coffin. So let’s put that false narrative to bed.

Also, I would take it as given that all posters in this thread would condemn racism without question ? With the assumption that all posters agree with that is it not right that such a serious thing as alleged racism is held to a high standard given the seriousness of such a claim. Let’s be honest there are not insignificant inconsistencies between Harry and Megan’s recounting of the alleged racist incident from the Oprah interview. It was said in this thread that a person of colour wouldn’t misremember a racist comment and I agree they wouldn’t but somewhere Harry and Meghan have because their recollections go beyond a difference of interpretation IMO.

As you will see from this quote from the interview, Harry's complaint was focussed about the racist press. I suggest you read the link below from the BBC which would be more factual about what was actually said.

For instance, about the wedding. It is simply described by the BBC as exchanging vows before being legally married on the Saturday which is completely different to what some are claiming on this thread.

They exchanged vows in a ceremony led by the Archbishop of Canterbury in their "backyard" three days before they were legally married at their public wedding in May 2018

This is a quote from the BBC website from Harry about racism:

The Duke of Sussex has said racism from the tabloid press that filtered into the rest of society was a "large part" of why he and his wife left the UK.

Prince Harry told Oprah Winfrey that the UK tabloid media is "bigoted" and creates a "toxic environment" of "control and fear".

He said he thought the Prince of Wales had to "make peace with it".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56324215

Nice to read something without a spin put on it.

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And btw end of the road just so you know this isn’t me being some mad monarchist like you’ve alleged to many in this thread. I’m Irish and have no allegiance or loyalty to the British(or any other royal family) despite what you have claimed.

And just for historical accuracy, it was Prince William and not Harry who had to be encouraged to walk behind the coffin. So let’s put that false narrative to bed.

Also, I would take it as given that all posters in this thread would condemn racism without question ? With the assumption that all posters agree with that is it not right that such a serious thing as alleged racism is held to a high standard given the seriousness of such a claim. Let’s be honest there are not insignificant inconsistencies between Harry and Megan’s recounting of the alleged racist incident from the Oprah interview. It was said in this thread that a person of colour wouldn’t misremember a racist comment and I agree they wouldn’t but somewhere Harry and Meghan have because their recollections go beyond a difference of interpretation IMO.

it's likely more conversations took place between megan and the individual at the centre of the claim, whereas only 1 conversation took place involving harry, which would explain the differences in their 2 recollections.

ceadaoin.

end of the road wrote: »

it's likely more conversations took place between megan and the individual at the centre of the claim, whereas only 1 conversation took place involving harry, which would explain the differences in their 2 recollections.

No. Didn't she say Harry told her of these conversations and the she wasnt directly involved?

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Its quite interesting to read a summary of the interview on BBC website. From that summary it is clear that their big gripe is with the English press. Harry has always hated them because of the way they treated his mother and the rest of the RF. Harry says that Charles has made a deal with the press to go easy on him.


They said in the interview that the English/British press is racist and bigoted. Harry seemingly said that when he told a friend what they were doing, the friend warned him that the press would destroy them. Looks like the friend was right.



Their issue with the RF is not that they are racist, but that they failed to defend Megan when they attacked her. My guess about how dark the baby was going to be was more to do with the racist British press than being actually racist.



Of course the British press turned the whole narrative about the racist RF to redirect the criticism from themselves. It would be i formative to know what the reading material of the anti-MH posters here is. Any volunteers?

So they left the royal family because the press is racist? Makes sense!

I don't believe anyone would have an issue with them leaving to live their lives away from prying media, but that's not what they did is it?
They wanted to pick and choose what work they did, and when they did it, but they also wanted to keep all the extras of being working royals without the work.
Their interview has done nothing but make them look like petulant teenagers.

You're so obsessed by British press! I don't read newspapers, I'm not on Facebook or twitter, and I don't believe their are posters who are 'anti-MH'

dogbert27

bubblypop wrote: »

So they left the royal family because the press is racist? Makes sense!

I don't believe anyone would have an issue with them leaving to live their lives away from prying media, but that's not what they did is it?
They wanted to pick and choose what work they did, and when they did it, but they also wanted to keep all the extras of being working royals without the work.
Their interview has done nothing but make them look like petulant teenagers.

You're so obsessed by British press! I don't read newspapers, I'm not on Facebook or twitter, and I don't believe their are posters who are 'anti-MH'

As the racist claim against a member of the RF has not been backed up by H&M their defenders are now trying to say that the discussion of racism was around the media.

Poor attempt at trying to re-write the interview. Unfortunately for them people have seen and heard the interview and it was stated by Markle that a member of the RF made a racist comment about what colour skin the baby would have and while she was pregnant which was contradicted by Harry saying there was one conversation about it before they were married.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

the reasons for why they left the rf.

Oh, and what was the other side for why they left?

Did the RF release a story for why they left?

You said the two of them had to get their side of the story out..

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

No. They moved out. Back in with the parents I think.

Edit: Moved back to a cottage in Kensington Palace. Looks like the reason was because M&H were shipping all their stuff out to California. Its now vacant so as a former army person, Harry should be able to camp out for a few days there. Very handy to Windsor as well.

Not according to this. https://observer.com/2021/04/princess-eugenie-jack-brooksbank-baby-august-settling-in-frogmore-cottage-home/
Or this https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1421278/prince-harry-latest-uk-stay-frogmore-cottage-princess-eugenie-prince-philip-death-evg

Neyite

Looking at the Queen's uncle abdicating is a good indication of why the Queen made the decision to insist that H&M couldn't be part time royals.

Her uncle abdicating to marry Wallis sounds like star crossed lovers but it was a bit more than that. While her being a divorcee and of commoner status was a barrier to them marrying (it's been overcome before after all), it wasn't the sole reason David abdicated. More of a problem was David and Wallis's close friendships with high-ranking Nazis in the early 30s and their open political support of the Nazi party. A less serious but equally problematic issue was that David and Wallis didn't want the responsibility and duty of royal life, they openly stated often that it was boring and tedious to meet the public and do ribbon cutting. Their preference was a jet-set lifestyle. They wanted to be on yachts off the south of France or couture/ jewel shopping in Paris. They didn't want to be on a baltic balcony in London waving at the great unwashed. They didn't want to be told that it was unwise politically to hang out with certain wealthy friends.

The queen's mother despised them for a few extra reasons -the first one was mainly that she was a terrible snob anyway about Wallis not being blue blooded, but others were that David landed her husband with the role of king, and in doing so, altered her life and the lives of her daughters permanently, thrusting them into the public eye and a lifetime of service. And lastly, her husband was a bit of a soft touch when it came to funding David and Wallis and their lavish lifestyles and haemorrhaged money to them from both the public funds and private wealth.

Over the years, they did try to give David royal posts overseas in different parts of the commonwealth- mainly to justify funding them and for him to earn his keep, but those usually were either met with very mediocre efforts from David or he did such a piss poor job of representing the royals he was just an embarrassing millstone for them and for the British government. But Wallis and David continued to fly around the world, hanging out with celebrities, spending with abandon. When you consider the backdrop of the time- Wartime and post-war Britain where the the then-Princess Elizabeth became a mechanic for the war effort, the King and Queen refused to abandon London during all the bombing and staying in solidarity with the public when the government wanted them somewhere safe even when Buckingham Palace got bombed. Princess Elizabeth used ration coupons for her wedding dress. Philip who she was courting at the time served with distinction in the Navy. The public lapped it up - they felt like they were all in it together and regard for the royals was never higher.

Meanwhile Wallis was swanning out of Cartier or Dior laden with bags and David and her were being photographed with dodgy Europeans on the back of their royal status. It's not a good look. After the war and after the King died, the Queen couldn't really cut them off because it was now an established arrangement by the king and David and so they had a LOT of money -millions - from the family over four decades. If it was up to the Queen mother she would have gleefully cut them off entirely but the problem was that if the royals didn't give them the money, David and Wallis would only find it from their dodgy friends. It would have been better had the King cut them both off from the start for future optics.

So you can imagine when Harry and Meghan had the unique light-bulb moment of keeping their pet projects, patronages and honorary military ranks, jettisoning the rest, living abroad and planning to supplement their royal income with associations with whichever wealthy friends and projects they chose, using their Royal status as leverage, the Queen probably immediately thought of David and Wallis and did a big "Oh HELL NO" at the idea of another David and Wallis situation - and there's enough parallels in both couples plans to justify the concern that history could repeat itself somewhat.

jm08

end of the road wrote: »

it's likely more conversations took place between megan and the individual at the centre of the claim, whereas only 1 conversation took place involving harry, which would explain the differences in their 2 recollections.

Meghan's gripe with the RF is that they offered no support or help when she was viciously attacked by the racist and bigotted English press. Stop trying to divert from the real issue here which is how she was treated by the press.


There is a link here which lists the number of articles having a go before the interview was given (Express had 50 articles!) including this one headlined:
''Media didn't bully Meghan - if anything they glossed over warning signs trouble lay ahead.''





https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1367791929619058689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1367791929619058689%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fnews%2Fmeghan-markle-and-prince-harry-oprah-interview-the-biggest-revelations-and-reactions%2F

FileNotFound

jm08 wrote: »

Meghan's gripe with the RF is that they offered no support or help when she was viciously attacked by the racist and bigotted English press. Stop trying to divert from the real issue here which is how she was treated by the press.


There is a link here which lists the number of articles having a go before the interview was given (Express had 50 articles!) including this one headlined:
''Media didn't bully Meghan - if anything they glossed over warning signs trouble lay ahead.''

Didn't know the RF had the power to block people from typing what they want in the press. Can't believe they let all those articles about Andrew out, what fools :D

dogbert27

jm08 wrote: »

Meghan's gripe with the RF is that they offered no support or help when she was viciously attacked by the racist and bigotted English press. Stop trying to divert from the real issue here which is how she was treated by the press.


There is a link here which lists the number of articles having a go before the interview was given (Express had 50 articles!) including this one headlined:
''Media didn't bully Meghan - if anything they glossed over warning signs trouble lay ahead.''





https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1367791929619058689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1367791929619058689%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fnews%2Fmeghan-markle-and-prince-harry-oprah-interview-the-biggest-revelations-and-reactions%2F

I think you're the one trying to divert from the interview

walshb

dogbert27 wrote: »

I think you're the one trying to divert from the interview

Absolute deflection

So, now it was the media who were the baddies, and the issue was that RF didn't stop the media writing things....

Unreal...

So, to get "their side" out on this, they then go on a global chat show and slate the RF...

I am completely lost with all the bull excuses being given here...

Itssoeasy

jm08 wrote: »

As you will see from this quote from the interview, Harry's complaint was focussed about the racist press. I suggest you read the link below from the BBC which would be more factual about what was actually said.

For instance, about the wedding. It is simply described by the BBC as exchanging vows before being legally married on the Saturday which is completely different to what some are claiming on this thread.



This is a quote from the BBC website from Harry about racism:



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56324215

Nice to read something without a spin put on it.

I’m on about the serious allegations against members of the royal family that are contradictory and don’t help their claims. They also said they wouldn’t name names because it hurt the person who said it. My response to that is **** whoever said it, because if the allegations are true then they should be named and shamed because clear racist comments have no place anywhere. If they weren’t going to name the person they shouldn’t have brought it up.

Leg End Reject

dogbert27 wrote: »

I think you're the one trying to divert from the interview

And denying that Meghan did actually say they were married 3 days before the "public spectacle".

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

it's likely more conversations took place between megan and the individual at the centre of the claim, whereas only 1 conversation took place involving harry, which would explain the differences in their 2 recollections.

If that’s the case then they had ample opportunity to make that clear and given it was a friendly interviewer, I’m sure allowances would have been made to get it right. Harry and Megan had the control of the narrative they wanted to get across and on several points it falls down.

The racism one to me is the one I have most issue with because of the seriousness of the allegation. To be labelled a racist is serious and IMO for such a claim to be made there needs to be evidence to back it up. For all the faults and weirdness around the British royal family, at the end of the day they are human beings and like us all shouldn’t be labelled a racist when they are.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9461707/PIERS-MORGAN-Park-ego-dont-whine-work-hard-JUST-IT.html
“ Here is Prince Philip's 10-point guide to surviving and thriving as a royal.

1) PARK THE EGO. Philip's biographer and long-time friend, Gyles Brandreth, revealed: 'He said to me more than once: 'It's a big mistake to think about yourself. No one is interested in you in the long run. Don't court popularity. It doesn't last. Remember that the attention comes because of the position you are privileged to hold, not because of who you are. If you think it's all about you, you'll never be happy.' '

2) DON'T WHINE. Philip could be extremely brusque and curmudgeonly in private, as many who knew him well have attested, but always behind closed doors.

He understood the British public would never stomach hearing the richest and most privileged people in the country complaining about how awful their lives were.

So, when on royal duty, he kept his moaning mouth shut and his gripes to himself, as he shook hands, smiled, and small-talked with complete strangers, day after day, week after week, year after year.

3) WORK HARD. The Duke took his royal duty very seriously and performed it very diligently – he carried out a staggering 22,191 solo engagements in seven decades of public service, gave 5,493 speeches, was patron, president or member of 837 organisations, and travelled to 143 countries on official business. And he kept going until he was 96!

4) READ. Philip was an avid reader, with a personal library at Buckingham Palace that housed over 11,000 books, most of them on religion, conservation and wildlife, sport, poetry and art.

He didn't bother with novels because he preferred reality to fiction (this is also why he despised the media who he believed peddled soap opera guff about his family, not the truth).

But he strongly believed that through reading comes knowledge, and through knowledge comes wisdom.

5) AVOID SCANDAL. There were a few scurrilous rumours about Philip's supposed misbehaviour over the years but that is how they remained: scurrilous rumours that in private he vehemently denied.

In over 70 years of public service, he conducted himself with enormous personal probity, honesty and discretion, and barely put a foot wrong other than uttering the odd verbal gaffe - most of which were funny, harmless quips that were taken in good jest by the recipients, as they've been confirming since he died.

6) STAY OFF OPRAH. 'Give TV interviews, by all means,' Philip said. 'But don't talk about yourself.'

Gyles Brandreth said the Duke thought Meghan and Harry's decision to grant their friend Ms Winfrey a lengthy prime-time US TV audience was 'madness' and 'no good would come of it.'

He apparently thought the same about all the other big royal TV confessionals – from Diana and Charles opining on their broken marriage in the 1990s to Andrew's toe-curling BBC Newsnight interview about his friendship with billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And he wasn't wrong, was he?

7) KEEP FIT AND DO EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. Living your life in the royal goldfish bowl is a stressful experience.

To help cope with it, Philip ate healthily on a low-carb diet, drank little (he enjoyed the odd pint of bitter), quit smoking just before his marriage, and deployed the 5BX (Five Basic Exercises) daily military exercise formula of stretching, sit-ups, back extensions, press-ups and running/jumping on the spot that could all be done without equipment in a confined space.

He also found plenty of time for his sporting hobbies like carriage-driving, cricket, polo and sailing.

As a result, he had a fantastic immune system that helped him, as he revealed in 2016, avoid getting the flu for over 40 years.

Gyles Brandreth said the Duke thought Meghan and Harry's decision to grant their friend Ms Winfrey a lengthy prime-time US TV audience was 'madness'
8) STAY GROUNDED. I read a wonderful anecdote over the weekend regaled by Lynton Westray, an African-American man who worked for 32 years as a butler at the White House. He told NPR about the time Prince Philip and the Queen visited in the 70s. After dinner, Philip went alone into the Red Room, next to the state dining room, where Westray and another waiter were serving liquors.

He recalled: 'I asked him: 'Your Majesty, would you care for a cordial?' He says, 'I'll take one if you let me serve it. If you let me pour it, I'll have one with you.' ...

'So, he poured it and we took the same thing that he had. And we had our drink there together and had a little talk.

'He told us if we were ever over in London to stop at Buckingham Palace and see him. Can you imagine the Prince serving you? I enjoyed it.
'You know, we're not supposed to drink and carry on at that time. We're not guests. It was just the three of us in the room, so nobody knew what happened. And I drank my little cordial, we all drank, and had a little conversation.

'But that was one thing I'll never forget, having been served by royalty.'

We've heard a lot about Philip's supposed racism and snobbery. This fabulous previously untold story is a nice counterbalance to that narrative.

9) JUST GET ON WITH IT. Philip was a from a generation that believed in the power of resilience and the stiff upper lip. Speaking about his World War 2 experience, he said: 'We didn't have counsellors rushing around every time somebody let off a gun, asking 'Are you all right? Are you sure you don't have a ghastly problem?' You just got on with it.'

10) DO YOUR BEST. In the end, nobody's perfect, not even royals. Philip certainly wasn't - by his own admission he could be an irascible, difficult, demanding and sometimes downright rude man.

But his intentions were invariably honourable, and he always tried to do the right thing for his Queen and country regardless of the criticism that came his way. 'I've just done what I think is my best,' he said.

'Some people think it's all right. Some don't. What can you do? I can't change my way of doing things. It's part of my style. It's just too bad, they'll have to lump it.'

It was that authenticity that was his most appealing quality. Above all else, Prince Philip was true to himself, and that is something we should all, royal or commoner, strive to be”

anewme

5) AVOID SCANDAL. There were a few scurrilous rumours about Philip's supposed misbehaviour over the years but that is how they remained: scurrilous rumours that in private he vehemently denied.

In over 70 years of public service, he conducted himself with enormous personal probity, honesty and discretion, and barely put a foot wrong other than uttering the odd verbal gaffe - most of which were funny, harmless quips that were taken in good jest by the recipients, as they've been confirming since he died.


The odd verbal gaffe ?

retro:electro

William has posted a tribute to Philip

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNkRn-xliiv/?igshid=1e1q01da9r39f

MoonUnit75

retro:electro wrote: »

William has posted a tribute to Philip

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNkRn-xliiv/?igshid=1e1q01da9r39f

In my head I added 'unlike that other boll*x' at the end of that!

jm08

dogbert27 wrote: »

As the racist claim against a member of the RF has not been backed up by H&M their defenders are now trying to say that the discussion of racism was around the media.

Who do you expect to back it up? The Queen?

Poor attempt at trying to re-write the interview. Unfortunately for them people have seen and heard the interview and it was stated by Markle that a member of the RF made a racist comment about what colour skin the baby would have and while she was pregnant which was contradicted by Harry saying there was one conversation about it before they were married.

Actually, I tried to rewatch the interview but it seems to have conveniently disappeared. My comments are based on probably the most reliable account available, the BBC, which I linked . Did you read it?



The point is that the RF may not be racist, but they are terrified of the very racist, bigoted British press. and they have sold their soul for peace.



That twitter link I supplied where they analysed the newspaper content, found that in the space of 24 hours there were 150 articles, all of which which critical of her and racist in tone. In her court case that they won about the letter to her father, the court said that the coverage by the media was racist in tone and lets not forget, that the Mail's defence was that Jason Knauf held part copyright as he had co-authored the letter! Jason Knauf was her Communications Person and is now CEO of Prince William's Trust. Now that is proof that the William/Knauf and the Royal Family were in cohoats with the press and that Knauf is actually the one who leaked the letter. His reward? The top job with Prince William.