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

valoren

I think the whole crygate was drawn up as an example of how the "firm" were happy to let leaks hit the headlines particularly when what was being reported simply wasn't true, that Kate couldn't do anything about it as she was essentially a prisoner in the firm who couldn't speak out about what happened just like Meghan herself i.e. she made me cry, she apologized, I forgave her but we're in a situation where I wasn't allowed to speak up and defend myself, that this was obviously not good for your mental health and Kate was inhibited from correcting a false story because she slavishly adhered to the "never complain, never explain" modus operandi. That's the impression I got from Oprah even drawing it up. However, many Royals got the gutter press treatment but they didn't let the b*stards get them down so to speak.

Again, it's problematic because you'll never get the other side of the story and when you expose yourself to criticism from giving your side in such a high profile way then the knives will inevitably be out for you alone and not the other side maintaining their silence. The bias makes it appear that the criticism is entirely on Meghan but it's a logical consequence of the dynamic at play.

Itssoeasy

Ms2011 wrote: »

I definitely think he could have better prepared her or can you completely prepare anyone for that kind of life, who knows?
Harry was born into that life, its second nature to him and probably assumed she knew more than she did.
If I rocked up to Buckingham Palace I wouldn't have a clue what was expected.

You know what happens when you assume things.

Itssoeasy

Ms2011 wrote: »

Never did I say that they were perfect people or that I agreed with everything they did, but I don't agree the interview was spiteful or that Meghan was executing some kind of master plan or made Harry do anything he didn't want to do.
She seems to be shouldering the bulk of the blame for some reason.

I think that because she mentioned racism and easily disprovable statements to it and refused to name the person she shoulders the blame on that score which to me is the most serious allegation made but with no names it leads the court of public opinion to draw their own conclusions on which one of the royal family is allegedly a racist. Either name names or say nothing.

Ms2011

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think that because she mentioned racism and easily disprovable statements to it and refused to name the person she shoulders the blame on that score which to me is the most serious allegation made but with no names it leads the court of public opinion to draw their own conclusions on which one of the royal family is allegedly a racist. Either name names or say nothing.

Harry also mentioned racism and refused to name the person.

With crygate people said she should have just said it didn't happen and left it at that, no need to go into detail.
But with the racism conversation they want all the details, however they try to explain things someone will find fault.

superflyninja

Ms2011 wrote: »

That's what I dislike about 'trial by social media, people thinking that they've to right to tear someone apart because they 'invited it on themselves', like be the bigger person if that's the case.
Debate what she said ( and actually said, not leaked etc) until your hearts content, that can be done without the name calling, put downs and amateur psychiatry.

I just dont get your hyper defence of Markle. Its ok for her to publicly sling sh!t at the RF, including serious accusations of calling them racists but its not ok for us to debate what she said in a lively manner? She launched a 'trial by social media' at the RF but its not ok for us to question her via the same method?

I think the vast majority of people in here have been debating what she said without name calling. There is banter too though. Both things are allowed.

As for the armchair psychiatry, that too is allowed. Are our conclusions going on her medical record? No, but many of us have dealt with people of a similar nature to her to know what we are looking at. Maybe you are lucky enough never to have met such a person and I hope you never do.

To me, it looks like you are defending her simply because you see a woman being hotly debated and dragged through the mud by some quarters. You are dismissing any criticism of her out of hand without consideration. You have not stopped to ask why she is getting this reaction or stopped to ask why she even did the interview in the first place.

Itssoeasy

Ms2011 wrote: »

Harry also mentioned racism and refused to name the person.

With crygate people said she should have just said it didn't happen and left it at that, no need to go into detail.
But with the racism conversation they want all the details, however they try to explain things someone will find fault.

Yes because in a world where we rightly should call out proven racists, we should also hold anyone making such claims against a person to a very high standard. Vague statements in relation to racism to me don’t cut it.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

So why was she not a problem before she joined the royal family, did they just bring out the worst in her?

So why Harry was not a problem before he met her? Did she bring out the worst in him?

Neyite

Ms2011 wrote: »

In the interview.

She didn't actually say that the palace leaked the negative stories though. What she stated was the palace didn't defend her when stories like that came out.

In that she was correct. The palace never issue rebuttals for press rumours You just need to look at all the articles about Andrew that they've remained tightlipped about. Or the rags that claim Diana had a secret baby girl or loads of other things that range from 'probably true' to 'utter bonkers'.

Personally I think it's a wise strategy. If you start to refute the small stuff, you give the silence on the bigger stuff credence. If people know that the palace pick up the phone to the Daily Mail to set the story straight on a pair of kids tights, they'll expect it for the Epstein link. And when that phonecall doesn't come... it speaks volumes.

The other side of that is the Palace issuing a statement that later turns out to be disproved or just pure lies - what kind of fallout for the Royal Family would happen there? Meghan's fibs are fairly benign (apart from the racist one), but imagine the kind of nonsense Andrew would put the royal crest onto if he got the chance? It's too risky. The tried and tested "never explain, never complain" works.

Ms2011

superflyninja wrote: »

I just dont get your hyper defence of Markle. Its ok for her to publicly sling sh!t at the RF, including serious accusations of calling them racists but its not ok for us to debate what she said in a lively manner? She launched a 'trial by social media' at the RF but its not ok for us to question her via the same method?

I think the vast majority of people in here have been debating what she said without name calling. There is banter too though. Both things are allowed.

As for the armchair psychiatry, that too is allowed. Are our conclusions going on her medical record? No, but many of us have dealt with people of a similar nature to her to know what we are looking at. Maybe you are lucky enough never to have met such a person and I hope you never do.

To me, it looks like you are defending her simply because you see a woman being hotly debated and dragged through the mud by some quarters. You are dismissing any criticism of her out of hand without consideration. You have not stopped to ask why she is getting this reaction or stopped to ask why she even did the interview in the first place.

I don't know where you're getting that I said not to debate the interview?
The 'banter', name calling and amateur psychiatry maybe all allowed (don't remember saying they weren't), I find them unnecessary and dilute any point being made.
I have been on this thread since the interview and have addressed alot of the criticisms made including why I think they did the interview and I still don't get the disdain they elicit.

superflyninja

Ms2011 wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting that I said not to debate the interview?
The 'banter', name calling and amateur psychiatry maybe all allowed (don't remember saying they weren't), I find them unnecessary and dilute any point being made.
I have been on this thread since the interview and have addressed alot of the criticisms made including why I think they did the interview and I still don't get the disdain they elicit.

Firstly, I genuinely want to thank you for replying to the points I made. I've not seen enough of that from that side of the fence.
You are right, in a pure debate, sure name calling and such is not helpful. This however, is a thread on the internet. Its pretty tame compared to some dumpster fire discussions Ive seen.
The amateur Dr. Fraiser Crane stuff is important though and I dont think should be dismissed off hand in the same way as the name-calling. Her behaviour is screaming manipulative narcissist at many of us. We might be wrong but we arent saying it to have a go at her

Ms2011

Neyite wrote: »

She didn't actually say that the palace leaked the negative stories though. What she stated was the palace didn't defend her when stories like that came out.

In that she was correct. The palace never issue rebuttals for press rumours You just need to look at all the articles about Andrew that they've remained tightlipped about. Or the rags that claim Diana had a secret baby girl or loads of other things that range from 'probably true' to 'utter bonkers'.

Personally I think it's a wise strategy. If you start to refute the small stuff, you give the silence on the bigger stuff credence. If people know that the palace pick up the phone to the Daily Mail to set the story straight on a pair of kids tights, they'll expect it for the Epstein link. And when that phonecall doesn't come... it speaks volumes.

The other side of that is the Palace issuing a statement that later turns out to be disproved or just pure lies - what kind of fallout for the Royal Family would happen there? Meghan's fibs are fairly benign (apart from the racist one), but imagine the kind of nonsense Andrew would put the royal crest onto if he got the chance? It's too risky. The tried and tested "never explain, never complain" works.

Sorry to clarify, Meghan spoke about the media reporting untrue stories in the interview, I added some were leaked from inside the palace.
I think the palace is too clever to gets its hands dirty by releasing direct statements but stories are 'leaked' instead so that if it does go tits up it can never be traced back to the royal family.

ceadaoin.

Ms2011 wrote: »

So why was she not a problem before she joined the royal family, did they just bring out the worst in her?

Well I doubt that behaviour started only then, its just that she wasn't that important or well known. Maybe it was on a smaller scale. Didn't she dump her first husband by posting him her wedding ring?

JustAThought

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well I doubt that behaviour started only then, its just that she wasn't that important or well known. Maybe it was on a smaller scale. Didn't she dump her first husband by posting him her wedding ring?

Yes - he was a Hollywood agent - she posted his ring - her wedding ring - back to him by way of communicating that she thought the marriage was over - but had by then been caught cheeting on him with a fast rising millionaire celebrity chef - whi subsequently dumped HER - just prior to her running off to PR companies in the UK to try and buy introductions to Harrys circle of friends and People who could get her access to him. Heypresto - blind date organised by a royal shopper.

Itssoeasy

Ms2011 wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting that I said not to debate the interview?
The 'banter', name calling and amateur psychiatry maybe all allowed (don't remember saying they weren't), I find them unnecessary and dilute any point being made.
I have been on this thread since the interview and have addressed alot of the criticisms made including why I think they did the interview and I still don't get the disdain they elicit.

So you don’t get the issues around just vaguely throwing out an allegation with contradictory stories at best and likely imply someone in the royal family said racist statements ? I can’t understand how that’s okay. Would you like if someone alleged you of making racist comments and didn’t provide any proof to back it up ? No, I’m sure you’d take great issue with it and rightly so.

JustAThought

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So you don’t get the issues around just vaguely throwing out an allegation with contradictory stories at best and likely imply someone in the royal family said racist statements ? I can’t understand how that’s okay. Would you like if someone alleged you of making racist comments and didn’t provide any proof to back it up ? No, I’m sure you’d take great issue with it and rightly so.

Oh - they want accusations of making a racist comment to be viewed like crying rape - and we all know how that has worked our by revenge ruining the lives of many an innocent man.

Ms2011

superflyninja wrote: »

The amateur Dr. Fraiser Crane stuff is important though and I dont think should be dismissed off hand in the same way as the name-calling. Her behaviour is screaming manipulative narcissist at many of us. We might be wrong but we arent saying it to have a go at her

If those people had worked with her or had some first hand dealings with her I'd say fair enough but I don't know how anyone can make that kind of assessment based on a 2 hr interview and some questionable newspaper reports.

Ms2011

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So you don’t get the issues around just vaguely throwing out an allegation with contradictory stories at best and likely imply someone in the royal family said racist statements ? I can’t understand how that’s okay. Would you like if someone alleged you of making racist comments and didn’t provide any proof to back it up ? No, I’m sure you’d take great issue with it and rightly so.

But why blame Meghan, that's more what I don't understand, is it not Harry making the claim.

Itssoeasy

Ms2011 wrote: »

But why blame Meghan, that's more what I don't understand, is it not Harry making the claim.

It’s both of them but Harry said it was a comment made prior to the marriage once, whereas she said it happened multiple times during her pregnancy and it was Harry who told her. So someone is lying here because the dates don’t add up and also no way should you make a claim like that on worldwide TV based on what Meghan admitted was second hand information. Also, Meghan isn’t beyond scrutiny or blame. There’s a pair of them in it but Meghan also made claims about things which she implied were because of race when Harry wasn’t part of the interview.

Ms2011

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well I doubt that behaviour started only then, its just that she wasn't that important or well known. Maybe it was on a smaller scale. Didn't she dump her first husband by posting him her wedding ring?

But surely by now even a small misdemeanor would be exploited since Meghan has been in the public eye by someone looking to make a few quid.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

But why blame Meghan, that's more what I don't understand, is it not Harry making the claim.

She brought it up and Oprah questioned Harry when he came on to fervently hold Meghan's hand. It was an insidious way of framing any member of Harry's family as a potential racist.

Sure, Harry rang Oprah after to stress it wasn't the queen or his dying grandfather, but that left 2 heirs to the throne in the firing line (who he feels sorry for because they're trapped while he have the balls to leave), as well as all the other members of the family.

There is a pushback against racism now after the BLM movement, so it was a comment that could have long-reaching implications for a privileged white family.

Nasty and underhanded too, because if you were genuinely offended you'd identify the culprit rather than feigning concern for their reputation.

Ms2011

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It’s both of them but Harry said it was a comment made prior to the marriage once, whereas she said it happened multiple times during her pregnancy and it was Harry who told her. So someone is lying here because the dates don’t add up and also no way should you make a claim like that on worldwide TV based on what Meghan admitted was second hand information. Also, Meghan isn’t beyond scrutiny or blame. There’s a pair of them in it but Meghan also made claims about things which she implied were because of race when Harry wasn’t part of the interview.

Harry was off screen but he was still there and could have clarified anything he wanted to. He was able to make it clear that neither the queen or Prince Philip made the comments.

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

Sorry to clarify, Meghan spoke about the media reporting untrue stories in the interview, I added some were leaked from inside the palace.
I think the palace is too clever to gets its hands dirty by releasing direct statements but stories are 'leaked' instead so that if it does go tits up it can never be traced back to the royal family.

Earlier you stated that Megan said it in her interview. I asked you and that's exactly what you answered.
So, you're now just making stuff up, that you think might have happened!

Ms2011

bubblypop wrote: »

Earlier you stated that Megan said it in her interview. I asked you and that's exactly what you answered.
So, you're now just making stuff up, that you think might have happened!

Yes and when I realised how it read I clarified, its written text sometimes it reads different to how it's meant!

Itssoeasy

Ms2011 wrote: »

Harry was off screen but he was still there and could have clarified anything he wanted to. He was able to make it clear that neither the queen or Prince Philip made the comments.

After the fact he clarified it but there was nothing stopping him from being clear at the time. Again, my biggest issue with the whole thing and why I will keep posting replies when I see them is not because I’m a fan in any way of the royal family, because at best it’s a bizarre institution but they are still human beings regardless but it’s the allegations of direct racism and indirect racism made by both of them but more so Meghan. I ****ing despise racism and I was brought up to believe I’m no better or worse than anybody else which I take to include everything up to and including race.

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yes it is but you can’t expect an institution that old to flip a switch and change completely and neither Kate Middleton nor Meghan markle were going to change it quickly but hopefully it changes to a more Scandinavian model which might be its only way of survival. Where did Harry and Meghan get this idea they’d change it all though is my question.

i don't think they were expecting to simply change it over night.
i think what they were planning on doing was to show via their work and engagements with the public that the rf could be different and could modernise, which in turn if received well which it likely would be, the institution would introduce changes quicker.
but of course they stepped away so now that won't happen.

Deleted User wrote: »

The media was such a problem that Harry had to publish a request for them to respect Megs privacy. Trouble was that no one knew about her until then!

it is likely standard procedure to issue an across the board statement in relation to such matters rather then mention specific publications.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it is likely standard procedure to issue an across the board statement in relation to such matters rather then mention specific publications.

What? They were going out a few weeks when this earth shattering missive was broadcast. Then we all had to Google the object of Haz’s desire! So well known was she and their relationship!

retro:electro

Ms2011 wrote: »

But why blame Meghan, that's more what I don't understand, is it not Harry making the claim.

She brought it up. I got the impression from Harry’s body language that he wasn’t comfortable answering it and probably would never have brought it up of his own accord. He also contradicted her story. Make of that what you will.

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

i don't think they were expecting to simply change it over night.
i think what they were planning on doing was to show via their work and engagements with the public that the rf could be different and could modernise, which in turn if received well which it likely would be, the institution would introduce changes quicker.
but of course they stepped away so now that won't happen.



it is likely standard procedure to issue an across the board statement in relation to such matters rather then mention specific publications.

That was already happening with William, Kate, and Harry as a trio where they went on bbc radio 1 and probably were the first member of the royal family to do a link on radio. The three of them also had a very good and frank discussion about their mental health and how they could help others. So there’s no if it was received well because it clearly was being received well. Meghan could have easily bolstered but she and Harry decided they wanted a private life away from the UK. That’s fine but they can’t have it both ways. I know of one member of the Swedish royal family(a daughter of the king) who moved to the US and they don’t get this half and half out carry on. Their children were stripped of the HRH I believe.

Leg End Reject

I'm confused now - did they leave because the RF are racist, because of the British tabloids, because the RF didn't charge out of the traps en masse to deny every story about Meghan or because Meghan couldn't modernise the RF in the wet week she stayed after her wedding?

I mean, of course, the official wedding, the "public spectacle".

Ms2011

retro:electro wrote: »

She brought it up. I got the impression from Harry’s body language that he wasn’t comfortable answering it and probably would never have brought it up of his own accord. He also contradicted her story. Make of that what you will.

Surely he would have said that to her in advance though if he didn't want it brought up.