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

end of the road

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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".

all of them i would imagine, multiple reasons for doing something is possible.
in fairness she gave it a good go being a senior royal, it's probably something you would know quick enough as to whether it's for you or not.

retro:electro

Ms2011 wrote: »

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

I don’t know. Maybe she thought the interview wasn’t going anywhere and she needed to drop a clanger. You would think that if they had discussed it beforehand they would have at least ironed out the same story. Personally I don’t think Harry was prepared for that coming out, and the more I watch Meghan back as she reveals it, the more I believe that to be the case. She kind of pauses, and ponders, eyes dart, she positions herself and takes a breath as if to say “just fcuking say it”.. it had all the hallmarks of being spontaneously sprung.
and you’ll never convince me that Harry was anything other than uncomfortable being asked about it.

PhoenixParker

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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".

. “After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen. It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment. We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages. This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity. We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, and all relevant parties. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”

This is what they said originally that they wanted. They were told no.

Purple Mountain

I think I need to watch this interview again. Reading this thread is raising more questions than answers!

Leg End Reject

PhoenixParker wrote: »

This is what they said originally that they wanted. They were told no.

I was being sarcastic because different reasons are being suggested all the time, when they clearly wanted to make a name for themselves and keep all the privileges of being working royals.

Quantum Erasure

Ms2011 wrote: »

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

Maybe it didn't even register for him, had completely forgotten about it...? Although Meghan probably did bring it up with him a couple of times during the pregnancy, so...

JoChervil

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.

You really don't see the difference between rejecting silly story and throwing serious accusations?

JoChervil

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.

So many employees left. Some accused her of bullying. Don't you think it is a big possibility that "leaks" were a revenge of these people especially when all their complains were muted or dismissed by RF?

Why did it happen 6 months after that? Why not at once?

Itssoeasy

PhoenixParker wrote: »

This is what they said originally that they wanted. They were told no.

Christ I’d not seen that statement before. The usual stupid buzzwords sprinkled into it. Collaboration ? It’s the royal family which for better or worse(worse mostly) isn’t a collaborative effort. The queen calls the shots.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

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

She made a bigger issue of it saying that there were several conversation, while she was pregnant.

While Harry said it was one conversation at the very beginning of their relationship.

Don't you see a difference between talking about a stranger, who Harry recently met and talking about his wife with whom he developed strong relationship and about a kid she was expecting?

retro:electro

The funniest dynamic of the whole thing is Meghan wanted BP to come out and defend her over something as silly as a row over kiddies tights but has no bother at all putting the whole of the senior RF under the microscope for allegations of racism, knowing full well nobody can defend themselves and not giving enough details for anyone to even be able to begin to defend themselves. And so they all get tarnished.
You’ll never convince me that she is anything but a narcissist. I’ve only ever encountered one and they would leave you slack jawed with how they operate. They will be ten steps ahead of you at every turn. They will rewrite history to suit themselves and are at their most dangerous when they feel they are about to be exposed. They will blame you for not fixing problems that they created, and they can’t seem to grasp how some of their actions literally invite negative attention.
But they will always threaten you — either covertly or overtly and you will be let know through one way or another. It might not be a direct threat, it could come in the form of intimidation or shaming but the intention is the same. They will end up doing to you what they spent so long trying to convince others was happening to them, and they will act in the same manner of those whose actions they shame, and their ability to apportion blame to literally everyone else but themselves is incredible.

That’s why the timing is this interview is precarious. I think unless you have encountered one and can understand the manipulation and deception they are capable of then it’s hard to convince others of how powerful and utterly convincing they can be. Ultimately people just have to learn for themselves. And I don’t think this interview will age well, at all at all. I mean it’s already falling apart and it’s only been a month.

Be right back

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I was being sarcastic because different reasons are being suggested all the time, when they clearly wanted to make a name for themselves and keep all the privileges of being working royals.

They really wanted to have their cake and eat it. Still extremely bitter in not getting what they wanted so decided to throw a vague racist allegation against the royal family. Mud sticks, after all.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

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

If it happened at the very beginning of their relationship, he could have even not remembered it and didn't expect it to surface. I had an impression that it was a rapport between Meghan and Oprah and Meghan chose Oprah above loyalty to her husband because I don't doubt he confided this story in her (if it was true of course).

PhoenixParker

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I was being sarcastic because different reasons are being suggested all the time, when they clearly wanted to make a name for themselves and keep all the privileges of being working royals.

In situations like this, where there's lots of pondering about what "they" wanted or meant, I always find it useful to go back to exactly what "they" said themselves.

As you say, they wanted to lose the hassle of being royal, but keep the benefits and make some money for themselves.

Neyite

. “After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen. It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment. We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages. This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity. We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, and all relevant parties. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”

I'd forgotten this.
It's clear by their statement here that there was no discussion with the queen beforehand and that they DID blindside her with their plans as outline in their very own words, considering she nixed all of these plans about a week after this statement was released.

Itssoeasy

Anyway from a human point of view I hope that the funeral of Prince Phillip goes off in a dignified manner tomorrow and as much as can be in Covid times give him a good send off. Funerals are **** at the best of times but I’ve unfortunately had to experience a funeral in the Covid era and they are even worse than normal because you lose all the support you probably took for granted previously. Hopefully William and Harry can act their ages and not shoe sizes tomorrow and not make it about them.

PhoenixParker

Neyite wrote: »

I'd forgotten this.
It's clear by their statement here that there was no discussion with the queen beforehand and that they DID blindside her with their plans as outline in their very own words, considering she nixed all of these plans about a week after this statement was released.

The subsequent statement (post chat with the queen) is worth reading too:
https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

Purple Mountain

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The subsequent statement (post chat with the queen) is worth reading too:
https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

There's a clear swipe in there at the Cambridges over the use of the word "royal" in their trademarks.
There's a very bitter and petulant undertone throughout a lot of that statement.

Leg End Reject

Purple Mountain wrote: »

There's a clear swipe in there at the Cambridges over the use of the word "royal" in their trademarks.
There's a very bitter and petulant undertone throughout a lot of that statement.

I thought they lost their HRH status.

I was wrong ON THE INTERNET! :eek::D:p

B!gD0g543

Deleted User wrote: »

There doesn't seem to be anywhere to discuss these two and their interview with Oprah so hopefully it can stay here

I watched it and was transfixed. I don't Believe Meghan was lying but I've a feeling there is much more to her experiences. Reading between the lines of the current family estrangements it seems that the difficulty was mostly with Charles and William. Oh to be a fly on the wall.

What say the rest of you?

To be honest, I think that Meghan is someone who only wants a lot of a attention, and she knows this is the perfect opportunity and the right moment.

B!gD0g543

Jequ0n wrote: »

It was a televised interview and you don’t think anyone was lying?
Like really?

I agree 100%. It all looked like a show to me. Oprah's interview should be rememberd as turning point for the Crown.

gozunda

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The subsequent statement (post chat with the queen) is worth reading too:
https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

I do like this bit ...

While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020...

Website address of the above -"https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/"

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDKGAPppxwU

Just to add context to my post about the younger senior royals seeming sound enough. Here’s William and Kate on with Scott mills and I’d not watched it in a while but it’s striking who normal they are. I mean Prince William text in and got a shout out from Coxy herself. I’ve tried that and I’m still waiting so a virtual tip of the cap.

Leg End Reject

Itssoeasy wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDKGAPppxwU

Just to add context to my post about the younger senior royals seeming sound enough. Here’s William and Kate on with Scott mills and I’d not watched it in a while but it’s striking who normal they are. I mean Prince William text in and got a shout out from Coxy herself. I’ve tried that and I’m still waiting so a virtual tip of the cap.

I've just watched a few minutes of that but they look so relaxed. They normally seem socially awkward and uncomfortable. I'll watch the rest of it tomorrow.

Leg End Reject

gozunda wrote: »

I do like this bit ...



Website address of the above -"https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/"

They changed it to Archewell when they didn't get their way. I'd say they were raging!

dogbert27

Leg End Reject wrote: »

They changed it to Archewell when they didn't get their way. I'd say they were raging!

I wonder how the second child will feel when they see their parents renamed everything after big brother!

Although I guess Archie is "first in line"

ceadaoin.

dogbert27 wrote: »

I wonder how the second child will feel when they see their parents renamed everything after big brother!

Although I guess Archie is "first in line"

Meghans actual first name is Rachel. Could be said she named both her child and the charity after (anagrams of sorts of) herself lol

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The subsequent statement (post chat with the queen) is worth reading too:
https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

A very interesting point from the above link.
“ The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. They remain a valued part of Her Majesty’s family. ”

valoren

PhoenixParker wrote: »

This is what they said originally that they wanted. They were told no.

And you wonder if this one foot in and one foot out arrangement was agreed whether the Oprah interview with the bombshells would have even happened.

valoren

I just think it was an exercise in victim playing, of someone playing off that they were the victims of racism, neglect and abuse by the media and public.

Here's an example to illustrate how it can work.

Let’s say we went on a night out together. I drink too much and I say some horrible and despicable things to you. It leads to you understandably falling out with me. It's clearly my fault but in the aftermath I know that you have the capacity to tell others how abusive I was. Now, I could call you up and seek to make amends by apologizing profusely for my behavior and hope that you accept my sincere apology. It could possibly salvage our friendship which was damaged explicitly because of my behavior. The power to resolve this is given to you. You are in control. Or, if I was being cynical, controlling and manipulative, I could call you and confide in you that I was sexually abused as a child by “someone” and that I was remembering that ordeal after drinking too much and I had just “acted out” by being abusive to you. In the first instance, I am apologizing for being an abusive asshole but the second contains a deliberate trap and it’s this sort of trap (racial remark, suicidal) which I believe was being invoked by Meghan. If the person I abused does not accept my made up story then I have the power to accuse them of being insensitive to my story. If they ask probing questions about what happened to me then I can accuse them of not believing me and accuse them of calling me, a victim of (deliberately imagined) sexual abuse, a liar. I have manipulated them by invoking a sensitive topic and the likelihood is that this sensitive topic will get me what I actually want i.e. covering up what was abusive behavior by me to someone else and the abused person not challenging me due to the sensitive nature of my explanation. I got to abuse you and, brilliantly, I got away with it too. It could even become a learned behavior and I can identify that my “I was sexually abused” story can be re-used to excuse me from abusing other people as well where and when required.

Piers Morgan said "Meghan cynically exploits victimhood to suppress free speech". His message here is that, in my example, you should be free to pour scorn on my story about sexual abuse particularly if my story simply doesn’t add up or make any kind of logical or rational sense. You should be free to say that there is a possibility that I am deliberately making it up to excuse my toxic behavior towards you and, consequently, you should not be smeared as an insensitive person simply because you decide not to believe me. Recall how Meghan was very quick to make a complaint to ITV about Morgan's disbelieving reaction. She was not so quick to tell who the “someone" was in the someone said a racist remark about our baby story nor who the "someone" was who denied her help following her suicide ideation. Tar them all with the same brush deliberately. It was telling because she knew Morgan had the capacity and high profile audience reach to torpedo her victim playing. Getting him fired would be a case of shooting such a messenger and his clear bias against her could be latched onto in order to discredit him. The same happened to Osbourne who had the temerity to support him. She was a racist. See the power and the trap? In the above example, to salvage my reputation, I could smear you to others about what an abusive asshole you were. The roles get reversed and anyone on red flag alert would have the sense to avoid me. Deliberately playing the victim is an effective tactic and defense mechanism. It was the lack of details in what are serious accusations which made me suspicious about the motives in the interview. As retro:electro said, hopefully you never meet people like this as they are so dangerous and despite smearing the royal family and despite those taken in by it, it seems that it has fallen apart already and not gained any traction.