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

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

well no we don't actually know whether it was that their request couldn't be accommodated or whether there was an unwillingness to accommodate it, either way it's no big deal.
they didn't throw a wabbler either, they were unhappy perhapse but that's fine, people are often unhappy for all sorts of reasons.

Well whether it couldn’t be or wouldn’t be for whatever the reason— “what Meghan wants Meghan gets” is not an appropriate response in the situation. Strange that Oprah never asked about the origins of that quote...

Be right back

end of the road wrote: »

she could but quite likely it's always better to experience the actual real thing where possible, hence that is what she wanted to do.

We can't always get what we want!

valoren

bunny_mac wrote: »

Meghan Markle is a raging narcissist. Anyone who's been unfortunate enough to have had experience with a narc can see it as plain as day.

Agreed. A particular favourite is counter accusations that anyone pointing out the blatant narcissism doesn’t have the qualifications to make that determination but the adage of "if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck” applies. Just because someone doesn’t have an official diagnosis doesn’t mean they don't possess the traits. It is all akin to a reality show as we watch a deeply narcissistic person groom her husband from being an initially love bombed target, to being an emotionally abused and manipulated victim up to currently becoming a willing enabler of his wife’s “truth”, a champion of her woke culture who had to throw his family under a bus likely for the sake of his own mental health, to keep his own family unit together and to spare himself from the emotional abuse of a personality disordered spouse who is hell bent on playing the victim and who might have him walking on eggshells as he reluctantly goes along with the narrative to the detriment of his own family relationships. The old divide and conquer strategy worked brilliantly. There’s also the public image and reputation Harry has, which he would obviously know about, as not being the sharpest in a “nice but dim” way and though he might actually grasp what kind of relationship he is in, there might be the reluctance to do anything about it as to do something about it and acknowledge that he’s been had would validate that reputation he has with the public and via stubbornness and to the frustration of his family, friends and advisors he digs his heels in to support his wife.

That's really the only reason I can see why it all happened i.e. someone achieved a certain status, wanted the instant gratification of all the perks that went along with it but the actual reality of being a working Royal stiff down the hierarchy metamorphosised into a gambit to rake in millions from the new status that, shock horror, came with pesky terms and conditions attached. I'd say that if Harry realised what had happened to him and listened to prescient advice of slowing it down then he'd have been lumped in with the rest of the racist family via a dumping/divorce with the requisite victim playing narrative amped up to the max. Someone can be narcissistic and go along to get along with people given the bigger picture but it's the disordered Cluster B types who engage in the reality show we're currently seeing, the kind who get such a fantastic platform, manage to screw it up and subsequently employ the scorched earth approach pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. It's like the old fable Frog and the Scorpion. Divorced, estranged from all and sundry as it was? "I couldn't help it, it's in my nature". Irrational, self-aware destruction.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

well no we don't actually know whether it was that their request couldn't be accommodated or whether there was an unwillingness to accommodate it, either way it's no big deal.
they didn't throw a wabbler either, they were unhappy perhapse but that's fine, people are often unhappy for all sorts of reasons.

This is what is so interesting about the issues Meghan repeatedly addressed in the interview and the ones she totally avoided. There was no mention of the 'what Meghan wants, Meghan gets' quote from Harry or her strop over the tiara. If she made such a big point over the 'made Kate cry' story, it would be incredible if she didn't mention this story being untrue.

PhoenixParker

end of the road wrote: »

well no we don't actually know whether it was that their request couldn't be accommodated or whether there was an unwillingness to accommodate it, either way it's no big deal.
they didn't throw a wabbler either, they were unhappy perhapse but that's fine, people are often unhappy for all sorts of reasons.

We do because they (or their "friends") gave a detailed account to the authors of Finding Freedom. They cooperated with the book and the details given are very specific.

This is a very detailed run down of the whole story including all the various accounts by newspapers, the couple themselves and Finding Freedom.

Leg End Reject

"I want it now!"

Meghan would be a great Verruca Salt if Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is ever remade.

dogbert27

PhoenixParker wrote: »

We do because they (or their "friends") gave a detailed account to the authors of Finding Freedom. They cooperated with the book and the details given are very specific.

This is a very detailed run down of the whole story including all the various accounts by newspapers, the couple themselves and Finding Freedom.

Even the name of the book is derogatory to the RF. Finding freedom, :rolleyes:

They weren't exactly oppressed or held against their will. If she didn't want to be part of a monarchy and the protocols that involved she shouldn't have pursued Harry

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

You’d expect it from a toddler. Not from a near 40 old woman whinging about tights and tiaras

yes but then again there is no evidence meghan actually threw a tantrum.
it's just speculation with no real basis that she did from what i can see.
i'm sure she was unhappy but that's life.

retro:electro wrote: »

Well whether it couldn’t be or wouldn’t be for whatever the reason— “what Meghan wants Meghan gets” is not an appropriate response in the situation. Strange that Oprah never asked about the origins of that quote...

that response could have meant that harry believed she should have had the request granted because it was in relation to her wedding.
it doesn't really say anything about her specific personality given we weren't there to know the exact context and the exact manner in which it was actually said.

valoren wrote: »

Agreed. A particular favourite is counter accusations that anyone pointing out the blatant narcissism doesn’t have the qualifications to make that determination but the adage of "if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck” applies. Just because someone doesn’t have an official diagnosis doesn’t mean they don't possess the traits. It is all akin to a reality show as we watch a deeply narcissistic person groom her husband from being an initially love bombed target, to being an emotionally abused and manipulated victim up to currently becoming a willing enabler of his wife’s “truth”, a champion of her woke culture who had to throw his family under a bus likely for the sake of his own mental health, to keep his own family unit together and to spare himself from the emotional abuse of a personality disordered spouse who is hell bent on playing the victim and who might have him walking on eggshells as he reluctantly goes along with the narrative to the detriment of his own family relationships. The old divide and conquer strategy worked brilliantly. There’s also the public image and reputation Harry has, which he would obviously know about, as not being the sharpest in a “nice but dim” way and though he might actually grasp what kind of relationship he is in, there might be the reluctance to do anything about it as to do something about it and acknowledge that he’s been had would validate that reputation he has with the public and via stubbornness and the frustration of his family, friends and advisors he digs his heels in to support his wife.

That's really the only reason I can see why it all happened i.e. someone achieved a certain status, wanted the instant gratification of all the perks that went along with it but the actual reality of being a working Royal stiff down the hierarchy metamorphosised into a gambit to rake in millions from the new status that, shock horror, came with pesky terms and conditions attached. I'd say that if Harry realised what had happened to him and listened to prescient advice of slowing it down then he'd have been lumped in with the rest of the racist family via a dumping/divorce with the requisite victim playing narrative amped up to the max. Someone can be narcissistic and go along to get along with people given the bigger picture but it's the disordered Cluster B types who engage in the reality show we're currently seeing, the kind who get such a fantastic platform, manage to screw it up and subsequently employ the scorched earth approach pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. It's like the old fable Frog and the Scorpion. Divorced, estranged from all and sundry as it was? "I couldn't help it, it's in my nature". Irrational, self-aware destruction.

it's a correct statement though, without a diagnosis that she is a narcissist and without actual, real evidence that she is, then really it's just a created narrative that she is a narcissist.
as i said if she was really one there would actually be real evidence available and there isn't, she is doing the worst job i have ever come across at being one.

harry knows his own mind, i get it's hard for people to except he has grown up and is an adult now but he is and made a perfectly valid choice to step down from being a senior royal and emigrate to the US with his wife and child.
if it does end up not working out then yes that is sad for them but the reality is they are no different to any other person in the world, rather it's only the privilages that harry has via basic birth right that bring some sort of difference where really it shouldn't.

end of the road

dogbert27 wrote: »

Even the name of the book is derogatory to the RF. Finding freedom, :rolleyes:

They weren't exactly oppressed or held against their will. If she didn't want to be part of a monarchy and the protocols that involved she shouldn't have pursued Harry

it's a book title, hardly a big deal, not derogatory to anyone.
no reason why she

both her and harry shouldn't have got into a relationship if that is what they wanted, perhapse at first she felt she could cope with all that goes with being a senior member of the rf.
anyway they are both free now and can do as they please, there are enough left in the rf to cover royal duties.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

yes but then again there is no evidence meghan actually threw a tantrum.
it's just speculation with no real basis that she did from what i can see.
i'm sure she was unhappy but that's life.

Why be unhappy though? Why not just accept logic and understand that your every demand can’t be catered to willy nilly? Why not just use a plastic one like others had to and not have Harry marching up and down like a spanner shouting at staff and demanding things? There’s also zero proof that William had an affair but you don’t mind thanking posts that suggest he did, because that suits your narrative. I find it bizarre how your posts and others like yours will consistently dismiss Meghan’s diva antics but if it was anyone else they would be crucified for it. Charlotte, a three year old child, can’t even poke her tongue out without being labelled difficult. Meghan did the same and she’s almost 40, what’s her excuse?

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s not that simple. The Queen has to give her consent for a piece of her jewellery to be used. Meg wanted to use a tiara of doubtful provenance. This was when Harry supposedly said that whatever Meghan wants, Meghan gets. Her majesty thought otherwise and decided that Meghan would take what she was given.

There are two versions doing the rounds in the tabloids.
1. That Meghan didn't like the one the Queen gave her and that she wanted another one. According to that one is when Harry told his Grandmother what Meghan wants, Meghan gets.


2. The other versions of the what happened is that Meghan had a lovely day with the Queen & Harry getting her crown and there was no issue about which one it was and in fact that she loved it (and it was lovely).
The problems arose (according to an account in The Sun) was with Ms. Kelly, the Queen's dress as evert time Meghan arranged to have a fitting in the Palace, (no issue with security, Meighan was going to it with her hairdresser), Ms Kelly was not there until eventually Harry contacted the Queen and asked her to intervene.


Its amazing that there are two versions in the tabs about the same incident! Neither of them show the RF/staff in a good light.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

Or maybe she could have just used a plastic tiara for her hair trial like Kate did and not been such a demanding diva?

So someone would have needed access to the tiara to make a copy of it or did Meghan refuse to use the existing plastic replica?

Neyite

end of the road wrote: »

well no we don't actually know whether it was that their request couldn't be accommodated or whether there was an unwillingness to accommodate it, either way it's no big deal.
they didn't throw a wabbler either, they were unhappy perhapse but that's fine, people are often unhappy for all sorts of reasons.

We get their version - from the book they themselves unofficially contributed to - I wrote about it in earlier posts.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114584126&postcount=1465

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114584432&postcount=1468

To me it sounds like Harry was the diva here. The book states that he went off on one to the Queen's friend and employee. He wouldn't have done that had Meghan wanted that tiara. And as a man in the RF, what the hell would he know about the rules and protocol surrounding the Queen's jewels? Surely you defer to the people who you know, it's their actual job to look after them.

The Queen's substantial collection of jewels are in an underground vault in BP. It's temperature controlled and when viewing the tiaras, require the jeweller for the Crown to be there, plus the Queen's own dresser.

They presumably stay there until they are due to be worn for an official event and presumably only select security have the clearance to bring it out of that vault and to securely transfer it to wherever the head it needs to go onto is located.

It wasn't just the Queen's friend and dresser that was refusing to meet them with it. You are talking a jeweller, the Queen's personal staff, key-holders, security staff and security arrangements all dancing to the schedule of a hairdresser coming in from Paris. And when you contrast that with Kate who's hairdresser picked up a tiara in Claires Accessories to practice with, it couldn't be more clear what kind of strops went on.

It's just a shame really - you get this amazing gift from the Queen of England of wearing something beautiful and literally priceless for your wedding and then you go and reduce the Queen's personal friend to tears over it, and cause annoyance with the very person who gave you that gift in the first place.
It's very clear Harry was a bully in this instance but he was doing it at the behest of his soon to be wife and what she wanted.

jm08

PhoenixParker wrote: »

How many staff do you think they have?

Yes it's difficult to get for her wedding day. There are layers of careful organisation and coordination among multiple people who did that because it was for the wedding and organised in advance at the specific request of the Queen.

It's an extremely expensive , delicate piece of jewellery that's stored disassembled in a secure location. It's not a matter of ringing grannies doorbell and having a cup of tea while she pops upstairs to dig it out of her jewellery box.

From some accounts, the only security issues would have been Meghan and her hairdresser as Meghan was going to it in Buck Palace. They just needed Ms Kelly to be there to give them access to it. I wonder how all the security for it worked out on the actual day of the wedding?

Neyite

jm08 wrote: »

From some accounts, the only security issues would have been Meghan and her hairdresser as Meghan was going to it in Buck Palace. They just needed Ms Kelly to be there to give them access to it. I wonder how all the security for it worked out on the actual day of the wedding?

Who's going to assemble the tiara for them?



"Queen Mary's Diamond Bandeau: A flexible Art Deco-style bandeau tiara of diamonds set in eleven sections, pierced with interlaced ovals, featuring two floral clusters on either side and the County of Lincoln Brooch in the center. Made in 1932 by Garrard for Queen Mary and designed to accommodate the central brooch, which was one of Queen Mary's wedding gifts and dates to 1893. Bequeathed to Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. Worn by Queen Mary and the Duchess of Sussex. Worn as a wedding tiara by the Duchess of Sussex (2018)."

valoren

On the theme of evidence, there is also no proof that someone actually made a racist remark about the potential colour of their babies skin or proof that help was sought and denied for Meghan experiencing suicide ideation other than what the couple have said. You might think Meghan doesn't exhibit narcissism because there is no proof and I can believe that she is giving one side of a story and we don't have, nor will we have, the other side which makes what they said automatically problematic. I suppose if there was evidence such as a name, what they said or did, exchanges about those allegations etc. then we might be able to form conclusions. If you’re going to go engage with Oprah and seek to damage the Royals then it should be in for a penny in for a pound or else it was a case of someone saying something sufficiently damaging but being calculated enough to not offer any actual meat or substance because of the repercussions and consequences for them. Personally if someone was implying that I was a racist to a global audience then I'd be lawyering up so to speak.

Evidence of narcissism to me is going on Oprah, with an audience of millions, to talk about issues with the in-laws and not engaging with the family themselves privately about any grievances. It was a deflective hit job in that regard, an example of malignant narcissism.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

You’d expect it from a toddler. Not from a near 40 old woman whinging about tights and tiaras

Seriously, on her wedding day that would be viewed by about 100m people. That could be stressful for anyone.

jm08

Neyite wrote: »

Who's going to assemble the tiara for them?

"Queen Mary's Diamond Bandeau: A flexible Art Deco-style bandeau tiara of diamonds set in eleven sections, pierced with interlaced ovals, featuring two floral clusters on either side and the County of Lincoln Brooch in the center. Made in 1932 by Garrard for Queen Mary and designed to accommodate the central brooch, which was one of Queen Mary's wedding gifts and dates to 1893. Bequeathed to Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. Worn by Queen Mary and the Duchess of Sussex. Worn as a wedding tiara by the Duchess of Sussex (2018)."

Does it need to be assembled ?

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

So someone would have needed access to the tiara to make a copy of it or did Meghan refuse to use the existing plastic replica?

Why would she need an exact copy of it? Kate used one from Claire’s accessories

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

Seriously, on her wedding day that would be viewed by about 100m people. That could be stressful for anyone.

So are you finally relenting to the idea that she was a massive diva? Cool.
We got there in the end.

Neyite

jm08 wrote: »

Does it need to be assembled ?

Yes. Most of them can be de constructed to have a simpler tiara or a matching brooch, and this particular one has a centre detachable brooch. Normally after use they are disassembled and stored in their own boxes and only assembled by a jeweller vetted by the crown.



Plus there's very strict rules on how to wear one. One does not simply plonk it on one's head. There's a certain angle required - and you can imagine that had the hairdresser/Meghan done it their own way, the eagle eyed press would have spotted it, and been highly critical of her lack of respect for royal jewels etc etc..

So you need the Jeweller to assemble it, the Dresser to explain how it sits and how the hairdresser may work around the placement, and you'd also need security there at all times.

It says in the book the hairdresser had a very small window in which to do the trial. It could have simply been a case of not being able to coordinate everyone required within that time-frame, and for a meeting that for all the other previous weddings, was never required nor requested.

ceadaoin.

jm08 wrote: »

From some accounts, the only security issues would have been Meghan and her hairdresser as Meghan was going to it in Buck Palace. They just needed Ms Kelly to be there to give them access to it. I wonder how all the security for it worked out on the actual day of the wedding?

But Ms Kelly works for the queen as her personal dresser, and the queen was at Windsor at the time. Therefore it just wasn't possible for her to be at Buckingham palace when it hadnt been scheduled. The royal family and their schedules do not revolve around Meghan and Harry, as much as they seem to think it does. As the wedding date was obviously known well in advance, I'm sure they had all the security and access details well arranged for then.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Meg and her family will all be vacinated fairly quickly and as they still own a house in Windsor

I dont believe that they do

Leg End Reject

Even if you were borrowing a costume jewellery tiara from a friend you would check in advance. Not announce your hairdresser was coming for a trial and demand they drop everything and be at home for you to collect it.

Nevermind ignoring royal protocol, security and staffing arrangements to demand access to royal jewels that need to be assembled first. I'd also assume that security wouldn't just hand it over to Meghan and hairdresser and let them off to play with it?

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

Who's going to assemble the tiara for them?



"Queen Mary's Diamond Bandeau: A flexible Art Deco-style bandeau tiara of diamonds set in eleven sections, pierced with interlaced ovals, featuring two floral clusters on either side and the County of Lincoln Brooch in the center. Made in 1932 by Garrard for Queen Mary and designed to accommodate the central brooch, which was one of Queen Mary's wedding gifts and dates to 1893. Bequeathed to Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. Worn by Queen Mary and the Duchess of Sussex. Worn as a wedding tiara by the Duchess of Sussex (2018)."

Meghan wanted to wear this with the emeralds. It can be worn with emeralds, pearls or neither. https://www.google.com/search?q=queen%27s+russian+emerald+tiara&rlz=1C9BKJA_enIE744IE744&oq=queens+russ&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i10j0i22i30l4.5084j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=fnBDzbQ5b3Dn9M
The Queen offered the Queen Mary Bandeau instead.

Itssoeasy

jm08 wrote: »

I've been avoiding the racist rags. The BBC is many things, but it is not racist. Nor is the Guardian and a few others I've taken quotes from such as Vanity Fair and Elle magazine.






Who said it was. The point is that the RF tolerate racism from the racist press to save their own necks. They did not correct the misinformation that Meghan made Kate cry.



Harry was asked to sign a statement for the Palace stating that there was not a rift in their relationship. They could do it for Harry and William (even though it wasn't true as there was a rift, but they could not do the same thing for Meghan and Kate).

Again when the content of the interview is unhelpful you constantly pivot towards to the UK press. I mean if that’s not a tell I don’t know what is.

Big claim and one you’ve zero evidence of. The palace seem to only comment very very rarely and its only when stuff is demonstrably untrue. So the fact they didn’t would suggest there was nothing to correct.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

Meghan wanted to wear this with the emeralds. It can be worn with emeralds, pearls or neither. https://www.google.com/search?q=queen%27s+russian+emerald+tiara&rlz=1C9BKJA_enIE744IE744&oq=queens+russ&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i10j0i22i30l4.5084j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=fnBDzbQ5b3Dn9M
The Queen offered the Queen Mary Bandeau instead.

See, even this kind of speaks of the entitlement. Say my partner has a granny who's family tradition was to give women marrying into the family something historically important to the family and VERY expensive as their 'something borrowed' - would I;
a) Tell OH exactly what bit of jewellery I wanted, and all the other bits that match it, regardless of who it might have already been promised to, demand that I get access to it to play dress-up and make his grandmother's staff member of 25 years and her personal friend, cry until granny gives in;

or

b) have the manners I was reared with and wait until I saw what ones Granny wanted to offer me, thank OH's granny profusely and be aware of the incredible privilege and honour it is to wear something so lovely and meaningful to the family.

I dunno. I just think that Harry really failed Meghan here - not just with this but with lots of things to ease her into the family, and continuing to fail her in that he's not explained she was marrying into the toughest family business in the western world and that while there's a ton of rules, none of them are because of racism or treating her differently due to being American or whatever. That the hoops in front of her are exactly the same stupid hoops Kate, Sophie, Fergie and his own mother had to jump through.

He's on record as saying until he met Meghan he'd no idea London had such a diverse population. Like really? How seriously stupid and sheltered do you have to be to not see all the BAME population that live in his own home town? Then all of a sudden he meets a black woman and he was acting like racism is suddenly a brand new thing, and he's the White Saviour fighting the good fight on behalf of black people, cos that's exactly what black people need - white rich folk telling them how to fix the problems they face.:rolleyes:

And it has to be especially grating when you consider that a considerable amount of historical problems faced by people of colour around the world were perpetrated by his own elite class and very often at the behest of a rich white European monarch from which he descends.

Itssoeasy

jm08 wrote: »

From some accounts, the only security issues would have been Meghan and her hairdresser as Meghan was going to it in Buck Palace. They just needed Ms Kelly to be there to give them access to it. I wonder how all the security for it worked out on the actual day of the wedding?

Except there’s clearly more to it then just rocking up to buck house and asking for whatever piece of kit you need. It’s a secure building so there are hoops to jump through. In any place of work there’s security protocols for getting keys or whatever and controlled access and apparently buck house you can just walk in and take what you want ?

superflyninja

valoren wrote: »

On the theme of evidence, there is also no proof that someone actually made a racist remark about the potential colour of their babies skin or proof that help was sought and denied for Meghan experiencing suicide ideation other than what the couple have said. You might think Meghan doesn't exhibit narcissism because there is no proof and I can believe that she is giving one side of a story and we don't have, nor will we have, the other side which makes what they said automatically problematic. I suppose if there was evidence such as a name, what they said or did, exchanges about those allegations etc. then we might be able to form conclusions. If you’re going to go engage with Oprah and seek to damage the Royals then it should be in for a penny in for a pound or else it was a case of someone saying something sufficiently damaging but being calculated enough to not offer any actual meat or substance because of the repercussions and consequences for them. Personally if someone was implying that I was a racist to a global audience then I'd be lawyering up so to speak.

Evidence of narcissism to me is going on Oprah, with an audience of millions, to talk about issues with the in-laws and not engaging with the family themselves privately about any grievances. It was a deflective hit job in that regard, an example of malignant narcissism.

Nicely worded.

And about the racist accusations, I think the reason she mentioned it like she did on the interview was for the single intention to throw dirt at the RF but leave nothing concrete to be investigated or any individual targeted. Really, really horrible behaviour.
I think that if she thought it was truly racist she would have named names and given more information. I think this is one of those situations that she twisted to suit her story.

Leg End Reject

How did Meghan know what tiaras the queen was custodian of when she didn't so much as Google the family and, by her own admission in the interview, no one explained anything to her?

Mystic Meg seems to have somehow intuitively known exactly what tiara she wanted.