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

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some interesting photos here of Charles being a cruel, uncaring parent. https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/gallery/20210525113894/prince-charles-relationship-sons-prince-harry-prince-william/1/

Those photos are very sad. Of course a picture will never show the whole dynamic but looking at them Charles showed a lot of love and care towards his sons. It looked reciprocated as well. How must he be feeling now I wonder. He must miss Harry.

Harry misses his family I'm sure of it. I'd say there are two pieces warring inside of him, the tantrum fueled little boy who won't give in and the one who wants to run home and be held and loved.

Sardonicat

lazygal wrote: »

She was a 36 year old divorced woman when she died. She was privileged and had access to any mental health supports she could possibly have needed. She was financially secure. She died because of a car accident not because her in laws weren't too keen on her.

Not to mention the fact that 'her cries for help' weren't ignored. She did get seen by a professional and a diagnosis was made. Whether she followed professional advice is another matter.

Itssoeasy

I know I went off topic but as I said I watched that documentary on Netflix about the seven days between her death and funeral and they played her brother's eulogy and his line about Harry and Williams “we your blood family” was a bizarre line. I mean Diana has been dead 24 years this year and your man Paul Burchall her butler is still making a living off her. I don’t see why she can’t be left to rest in peace and let her family remember her.

Purple Mountain

I wonder do the Spencer family support H and M's crusade?

Addle

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know I went off topic but as I said I watched that documentary on Netflix about the seven days between her death and funeral and they played her brother's eulogy and his line about Harry and Williams “we your blood family” was a bizarre line. I mean Diana has been dead 24 years this year and your man Paul Burchall her butler is still making a living off her. I don’t see why she can’t be left to rest in peace and let her family remember her.

Hadn’t she fallen out with her brother? He wouldn’t let her live on his estate after her divorce or something?

Addle

Addle wrote: »

Hadn’t she fallen out with her brother? He wouldn’t let her live on his estate after her divorce or something?

Diana asked if she could live in the cottage on the Estate so she could have an escape from the madness. Charles Spencer refused. They weren't speaking at the time of her death.

retro:electro

That is sad. For all his finger pointing, it sounds like she was let down just as badly by him too

Leg End Reject

Wasn't he a great lad to bring her home for her burial then?

Perhaps his speech was more a reflection of his own guilt, it's hard to justify that refusal when your sister died in a car accident at such a young age.

Ms. Newbie18

Be right back wrote: »

Misled??

Well she certainly would not have gave approval if she known what he was going to say.

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know I went off topic but as I said I watched that documentary on Netflix about the seven days between her death and funeral and they played her brother's eulogy and his line about Harry and Williams “we your blood family” was a bizarre line. I mean Diana has been dead 24 years this year and your man Paul Burchall her butler is still making a living off her. I don’t see why she can’t be left to rest in peace and let her family remember her.

That whole week was bizzare and more than a small bit embarrassing- I think the British public and press would rather forget the manner in which they behaved between her death and the funeral -while the Queen was attacked at the time, history is a lot kinder to her now

lazygal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That whole week was bizzare and more than a small bit embarrassing- I think the British public and press would rather forget the manner in which they behaved between her death and the funeral -while the Queen was attacked at the time, history is a lot kinder to her now

It was hysteria. I was in fourth year in school and it was a total distraction for the entire week. Even my usually level headed mother went a bit mad.

giles lynchwood

There was a feeling in her family and some of the public,that if Charles had lived up to his wedding vow's,she would never have been in Paris in the first place and therefore would never have died.

lazygal

giles lynchwood wrote: »

There was a feeling in her family and some of the public,that if Charles had lived up to his wedding vow's,she would never have been in Paris in the first place and therefore would never have died.

They were two people who should never have married. She was way too young and immature and he was clearly not in love with her.
If she hadn't been on the rebound she wouldn't have been in Paris either. It's all what ifs.

ShagNastii

Harry knows what songs to sing with the Woke US crowd. I was looking at an interview earlier in the week (can’t find a clip) and he explicitly said his mother was more than likely killed cause she was dating a black man.

Really Harry?.......

Deeec

lazygal wrote: »

They were two people who should never have married. She was way too young and immature and he was clearly not in love with her.
If she hadn't been on the rebound she wouldn't have been in Paris either. It's all what ifs.

Agreed they should never have got married. Charles needed an heir and unfortunately I think thats all he needed Diana for. Diana was very young and innocent when she married him and expected a fairytale marriage.

In the royal family/aristocracy it was not uncommon for people to marry the right 'stock' rather than for love.

Neyite

giles lynchwood wrote: »

There was a feeling in her family and some of the public,that if Charles had lived up to his wedding vow's,she would never have been in Paris in the first place and therefore would never have died.

He was in love with someone else, and married Diana for duty, but equally it could be argued that she was also more in love with the idea of being a princess/ future queen consort than actually having feelings for Charles. Neither of them knew each other on any real level. The other issue was that there was not only a big age gap, but also a big divide in what their interests were. Even as a young man, he was old-fashioned and preferred trudging through Balmoral and gardening, whereas she loved the London nightlife, discos and parties.

The blame is put on Charles because he was older than her, so should have known better but he had immense pressure from the Queen Mother and Mountbatten his own parents and the public to marry well. And they banished Camilla on him, because she didn't appear to be demure or virginal enough. So he literally went out and found the most demure, sheltered, shy and virginal one he could to please the lot of them.

Most of them learned from that though. Look at how long William went out with Kate - and the trouble he took to ensure she fully knew what she was getting into. Similarly with Sophie and Edward. He married a 'commonor' and is all the better for it as well.

With Harry and Meghan, well, I've probably got cheese in my fridge longer than their courtship, so how could she really have known what royal life was like? And Harry wasn't going to enlighten her either given it scared off the rest of his girlfriends in the past, so it could be said that he's repeating the massive mistake his father made - marrying someone in a hurry without really getting to know each other or the life that was ahead of them both. For sure had they stayed, it would just be a repeat of Charles and Di - possibly even more nuclear.

little bit of help

Charles was dating Diana's older sister first but she wasn't fitting the bill so the Spencers suggested Diana instead. They really wanted "in" to royalty. The more I see of Harry the more I think he really is of below average intelligence and that William and later Kate were minding him and guiding him in what to say and do. It explains so much of his behaviors. And now Meghan is pushing her agenda onto him and he goes along with it. So many times I think he should be old enough to know better but now I'm wondering if he is just a bit simple and he really doesn't unless he is told.

lazygal

little bit of help wrote: »

Charles was dating Diana's older sister first but she wasn't fitting the bill so the Spencers suggested Diana instead. They really wanted "in" to royalty. The more I see of Harry the more I think he really is of below average intelligence and that William and later Kate were minding him and guiding him in what to say and do. It explains so much of his behaviors. And now Meghan is pushing her agenda onto him and he goes along with it. So many times I think he should be old enough to know better but now I'm wondering if he is just a bit simple and he really doesn't unless he is told.

Harry seemed happier with his English girlfriends hanging around with his brother and sister in law.
I think it says a lot that Megan has fallen out with family members herself. Some people are like that.

JoChervil

Neyite wrote: »

With Harry and Meghan, well, I've probably got cheese in my fridge longer than their courtship, so how could she really have known what royal life was like? And Harry wasn't going to enlighten her either given it scared off the rest of his girlfriends in the past, so it could be said that he's repeating the massive mistake his father made - marrying someone in a hurry without really getting to know each other or the life that was ahead of them both. For sure had they stayed, it would just be a repeat of Charles and Di - possibly even more nuclear.

I think it was only explained in that way for Harry's sake. I once read an article, which might have been a b****t, that his last GF broke with him because he forced her to resign from a charity ball, she promised to attend because Harry got a free time in his schedule. So maybe he was treating her as a booty call, not a real GF. And she allowed for it because probably she loved him, so she wasn't strong enough to command better treatment. I don't think MM loves Harry, so she can do whatever she likes with him.

Addle

lazygal wrote: »

Harry seemed happier with his English girlfriends hanging around with his brother and sister in law.
I think it says a lot that Megan has fallen out with family members herself. Some people are like that.

He should’ve stuck with the bubbly blondes.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That whole week was bizzare and more than a small bit embarrassing- I think the British public and press would rather forget the manner in which they behaved between her death and the funeral -while the Queen was attacked at the time, history is a lot kinder to her now

I found it incredibly strange to see so many people melt down and shed tears for someone who lived such a privileged life so far removed from their daily lives. I understand people feeling sad for famous people but it's not like she actually achieved anything or did anything remotely constructive on behalf of the ordinary people.

BettyS

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I found it incredibly strange to see so many people melt down and shed tears for someone who lived such a privileged life so far removed from their daily lives. I understand people feeling sad for famous people but it's not like she actually achieved anything or did anything remotely constructive on behalf of the ordinary people.

Anybody can look back at my post history to verify my annoyance with Harry and Meghan. They certainly don’t help themselves.

I am genuinely baffled by people’s sycophancy towards an anti-democratic and exceedingly privileged family. Reading the comments here and on the Daily Mail, it is a case of royal family and beloved William and Kate perfect and they can do no wrong. For example, people are fawning (literally fawning) over them going to a papped outing to a fish and chip shop (aren’t they just like us?). People presume to know what the reality of the situation is. The truth is that we don’t know a damn. These people are not our friends. They have a carefully constructed, manipulated and maintained PR image. Who knows what they are like behind doors? (Remember how we call thought that Beckham was such a nice guy until the C**T emails emerged).

Everybody saying how wonderful the RF is. What about Andrew? Has he spoken with the FBI? Their friendship with Saville? Their manipulation of legislation to facilitate hiding their money from the public, Margaret and Peter Townsend, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Beatrice and plenty more examples.

BettyS

BettyS wrote: »

Anybody can look back at my post history to verify my annoyance with Harry and Meghan. They certainly don’t help themselves.

I am genuinely baffled by people’s sycophancy towards an anti-democratic and exceedingly privileged family. Reading the comments here and on the Daily Mail, it is a case of royal family and beloved William and Kate perfect and they can do no wrong. For example, people are fawning (literally fawning) over them going to a papped outing to a fish and chip shop (aren’t they just like us?). People presume to know what the reality of the situation is. The truth is that we don’t know a damn. These people are not our friends. They have a carefully constructed, manipulated and maintained PR image. Who knows what they are like behind doors? (Remember how we call thought that Beckham was such a nice guy until the C**T emails emerged).

Everybody saying how wonderful the RF is. What about Andrew? Has he spoken with the FBI? Their friendship with Saville? Their manipulation of legislation to facilitate hiding their money from the public, Margaret and Peter Townsend, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Beatrice and plenty more examples.

What are Edoardo and Beatrice examples of?

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

I found it incredibly strange to see so many people melt down and shed tears for someone who lived such a privileged life so far removed from their daily lives. I understand people feeling sad for famous people but it's not like she actually achieved anything or did anything remotely constructive on behalf of the ordinary people.

The hysteria surrounding the death of Diana was appalling to be honest. When she died, the two boys were with their father in Balmoral - the ideal place for two young lads to come to terms with the sudden death of their mother privately away from the public and surrounded by family.

But public pressure was put on the Queen & family to return to London. There was outrage that a flag wasn't at half mast, when it wasn't supposed to be anyway. If the boys hadn't walked behind the hearse the baying mob would have been outraged and made accusations towards the Royals that they were being hidden. The grief whores that lined the streets oudoing each other with their sobbing were the ones who expected to see two boys paraded behind their mother's coffin and the same baying mobs devoured the articles and photos of her that was so lucrative for the paparazzi in the first place.

Yes it was terribly sad that she died in an accident and particularly when so many benign variables all collided in one incident to cause deaths. If any one of those criteria had changed - a sober driver, a seatbelt, no paparazzi, royal protection, even a choice of a different restaurant that night, she probably would have survived. But the hysteria from the very same folk who were the first to castigate her for having a Muslim boyfriend just seemed so hypocritical and ridiculous.

Much of the funeral arrangements were driven by the public demand. They demanded the elaborate funeral befitting a royal- funnily enough it was the queen mother's funeral plan they used. Diana was no longer a HRH, and should have been given a private family funeral to give her sons the privacy they needed but the large mob wouldn't have that. Their grief was more important than the actual people who loved and cared about her.

Tilden Katz

BettyS wrote: »

Anybody can look back at my post history to verify my annoyance with Harry and Meghan. They certainly don’t help themselves.

I am genuinely baffled by people’s sycophancy towards an anti-democratic and exceedingly privileged family. Reading the comments here and on the Daily Mail, it is a case of royal family and beloved William and Kate perfect and they can do no wrong. For example, people are fawning (literally fawning) over them going to a papped outing to a fish and chip shop (aren’t they just like us?). People presume to know what the reality of the situation is. The truth is that we don’t know a damn. These people are not our friends. They have a carefully constructed, manipulated and maintained PR image. Who knows what they are like behind doors? (Remember how we call thought that Beckham was such a nice guy until the C**T emails emerged).

Everybody saying how wonderful the RF is. What about Andrew? Has he spoken with the FBI? Their friendship with Saville? Their manipulation of legislation to facilitate hiding their money from the public, Margaret and Peter Townsend, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Beatrice and plenty more examples.

I've been following this thread from the start and I'm struggling to think of many instances where people have said this. Can you give some examples?

I think most people here realise that the institution of the RF is ridiculous, so much so that it doesn't even need to be said anymore. It's trite if nothing else. It's all been said before. Some people, like yourself, seem to read that as people liking the RF. I dislike the idea of monarchy and think the RF is a daft anachronism. But I don't hate its members. Firstly, you couldn't pay me to trade places with them. Secondly, they could never have a normal life with normal jobs. The monarchy will need to be phased out if it's to go and that will take a long time. So defending members of the RF doesn't mean people like the RF. Some of us are just being pragmatic.

giles lynchwood

The spare's seem to be the black sheep of the family,the only difference between Harry and Oprah and Andrew and the BBC is topic,both seem to share a major lack of empathy for the people they talk about linked with sociopathic ego's egged on by two mush brained partners.

valoren

Neyite wrote: »

The hysteria surrounding the death of Diana was appalling to be honest. When she died, the two boys were with their father in Balmoral - the ideal place for two young lads to come to terms with the sudden death of their mother privately away from the public and surrounded by family.

But public pressure was put on the Queen & family to return to London. There was outrage that a flag wasn't at half mast, when it wasn't supposed to be anyway. If the boys hadn't walked behind the hearse the baying mob would have been outraged and made accusations towards the Royals that they were being hidden. The grief whores that lined the streets oudoing each other with their sobbing were the ones who expected to see two boys paraded behind their mother's coffin and the same baying mobs devoured the articles and photos of her that was so lucrative for the paparazzi in the first place.

Yes it was terribly sad that she died in an accident and particularly when so many benign variables all collided in one incident to cause deaths. If any one of those criteria had changed - a sober driver, a seatbelt, no paparazzi, royal protection, even a choice of a different restaurant that night, she probably would have survived. But the hysteria from the very same folk who were the first to castigate her for having a Muslim boyfriend just seemed so hypocritical and ridiculous.

Much of the funeral arrangements were driven by the public demand. They demanded the elaborate funeral befitting a royal- funnily enough it was the queen mother's funeral plan they used. Diana was no longer a HRH, and should have been given a private family funeral to give her sons the privacy they needed but the large mob wouldn't have that. Their grief was more important than the actual people who loved and cared about her.

Great post. I think Harry needs to consider, as you pointed out, the pressure and decisions that were forced upon his family at that time and, with some empathy, he might see that their hands were completely forced. When you’re entrusted with responsibility as a senior Royal then presumably such hard and difficult decisions need to be made. You take the slings and arrows regardless and I am sure they'd have preferred the private "no horse hooves, no emotive mob" route. It is obvious that his family loves him. If Harry can’t appreciate any of the above in the years since his mother's death then, yes, he is right to have stepped down as a working Royal, to go to California, to make a buck, to do his ancestral healing because of what he feels is his family’s “neglect”. He is right to spend his days convincing himself that it was nonsense like genetic pain and not that his family, pretty ordinary and flawed people living with extraordinary status, were put in what was an impossible and thankless situation for them which lead to the trauma for which he received subsequent rehab and therapy for. He can either keep his head in the cuckoo clouds or he can come back to some grounded, blunt reality.

Government buildings

I don't think Harry is the brightest. He has been so influenced by Megan that he doesn't know who he is or what he is.

She will eventually have no time for him. And the British and American public will disown him.

How could anyone have respect for someone who has so easily thrown away everything in their upbringing that they had held dear to themselves.

I think he's gone too far with his bridge burning to make his way back, or to be accepted back.

It's like watching a soap opera, only this time it's real live opera.

The sad part is that the ending will not be pretty.

Sunny Disposition

Criticising his father for a second time in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, that was so unnecessary.
Most people have problems with their parents, but hanging him out to dry publicly is horrible. Harry won’t win sympathy with his antics this year, showing a lack of maturity.

Itssoeasy

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Criticising his father for a second time in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, that was so unnecessary.
Most people have problems with their parents, but hanging him out to dry publicly is horrible. Harry won’t win sympathy with his antics this year, showing a lack of maturity.

Well there’s an audience for British royal family bashing, and look I’m not saying that as an institution its perfect or even relevant, but being Irish I’ve no say in how another country conducts their business in regard to monarchy.

From what I can gather there’s a fondness for the current monarch Queen Elizabeth and if not as high a liking for the rest, there’s not a overall hatred of them. Now, I could be wrong but that’s my take based on how the British public reacted after the Oprah interview over the timing and after Prince Philip died.

The one thing I do find that’s getting annoying is the narrative that Harry is spinning that only he went through a **** time after his mother died. I mean his brother might have been older but losing your mother that young must be awful regardless of age. William seems to have if not forgotten(not like you ever could) but he’s tried to get on with his life.