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

Andrea B.

dark crystal wrote: »

What's it to you if they had an opinion on the Royal family? You appear to have plenty of opinions yourself.

Bizarre to see the Royal family being defended to staunchly on an Irish site tbh. What have they ever done for us to warrant such devotion? I honestly don't get it!

Indian meal (during Famine) and the railways are 2 that come to mind.

walshb

dark crystal wrote: »

What's it to you if they had an opinion on the Royal family? You appear to have plenty of opinions yourself.

Bizarre to see the Royal family being defended to staunchly on an Irish site tbh. What have they ever done for us to warrant such devotion? I honestly don't get it!

Ah, I see..

This raises its head again. Something I mentioned before..

It’s so much more to do with being anti the RF anti British as it is that the two of them are in any way correct and proper..

An enemy of my enemy mentality...

Hardly devotion just because people have called both them out here as being bang out of order..

Tilden Katz

Rubberchikken wrote: »

While I don't like Lily as a name, seems to have been around a bit, I can see how shortening it from the Queens nickname is nice.
Honouring Harry's mother is another nice touch.

I never get the hatred these two people seem to bring out in the media and others.
Other than speaking their minds, they haven't done much else to endenger such inexplicable hatred.

Calling it hatred is being a tad overdramatic.

And speaking one’s mind provokes all kinds of reactions. I don’t see why speaking their minds should mean they shouldn’t be criticised.

valoren

dark crystal wrote: »

What's it to you if they had an opinion on the Royal family? You appear to have plenty of opinions yourself.

Bizarre to see the Royal family being defended to staunchly on an Irish site tbh. What have they ever done for us to warrant such devotion? I honestly don't get it!

I don't get any sense of posters actually defending the Royal family. If a sense of sympathy is being detected then it would be moreso towards the victims in this ongoing case study of a cluster B histrionic individual and the breakdown in interpersonal relationships they cause.e.g. the kind of people who you do everything you can for them (titles, patronages, expenses, privilege, security etc) but you mess up once by saying something insensitive and they're out the gap, crying racism on Oprah's couch and giving people the general impression that the people who embraced her are a bunch of toxic arseholes.

Many posters can see what's going on here and are merely weighing in with their opinions based on experience. The victims in this case study just happen to be the British Royal family but that does not mean they are being defended staunchly.

dark crystal

walshb wrote: »

Ah, I see..

This raises its head again. Something I mentioned before..

It’s so much more to do with being anti the RF anti British as it is that the two of them are in any way correct and proper..

An enemy of my enemy mentality...

What mentality is it that beats up on two young people who dared to criticise an institution which effectively ruined one of their mother's lives?

But, yeah, let's continue abusing them for daring to have an opinion.

dark crystal

valoren wrote: »

I don't get any sense of posters actually defending the Royal family. If a sense of sympathy is being detected then it would be moreso towards the victims in this ongoing case study of a cluster B histrionic individual and the breakdown in interpersonal relationships they cause. Many posters can see what's going on here and are merely weighing in with their opinions. The victims in this case study just happen to be the British Royal family but that does not mean they are being defended staunchly.

What??

Larbre34

Wales and Markle: we want out of the royal family, no more duties, no more grace and favour, no more Britain. We want to raise our family in California and be cool with our celebrity friends.

Also Wales and Markle: Let's name her after Britain's longest serving Monarch and Matriarch of the family we left and also the last Princess of Wales.

Puke.

seenitall

Poor Doria. She might just be the only grandparent those two kids will ever really know, yet her name is just not as profitable for passing down as those other two.

valoren

dark crystal wrote: »

What??

People being critical of Meghan and Harry are not defending the Royal family. You've never met someone with a personality disorder? Lucky you.

https://www.healthline.com/health/histrionic-personality-disorder

The Oprah interview was a good example of high profile dramatic "antic" but Meghan telling Harry she was suicidal but didn't kill herself (and their baby) because she didn't want him losing another woman in his life was the clincher for me personally.

Itssoeasy

dark crystal wrote: »

No shame? Lol. They've said nothing but nice things about The Queen. Diana hadn't the nicest things to say about the firm either, should she have shut up too?

The spiteful venom directed at these two, whilst moaning about how they've denigrated the bloody monarchy, is like something out of the 1950's.

Best of luck to them and the new addition to their family. Lovely news.

Except when Harry blamed her and her late husband for how they raised his father and which he says has lead to his own issues he has now. And there was when they gave a blanket statement about a member of the royal family allegedly making racist comments about their unborn son. If Harry had cared as much as he says he does about his grandparents maybe he'd have been a bit more specific on who it wasn’t during the interview and not have to make a clarification hours after it.

It’s not venom, it’s calling attention to what they say, and what they actually do which are at odds with each other. I thought at the time they left, that they were making the right call but they can’t leave it fully it seems.

dark crystal

valoren wrote: »

People being critical of Meghan and Harry are not defending the Royal family. You've never met someone with a personality disorder? Lucky you.

You've never met either Meghan Markle or Prince Harry, but you've somehow managed to armchair diagnose at least one of them as a "cluster B histrionic individual", whatever that is, whilst completely ignoring any valid, lived experiences they may have had whilst within the institution itself, something no one on this thread has actually experienced at all.

Anyway, have at it if it makes you feel good I guess *shrugs*

dark crystal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Except when Harry blamed her and her late husband for how they raised his father and which he says has lead to his own issues he has now. And there was when they gave a blanket statement about a member of the royal family allegedly making racist comments about their unborn son. If Harry had cared as much as he says he does about his grandparents maybe he'd have been a bit more specific on who it wasn’t during the interview and not have to make a clarification hours after it.

It’s not venom, it’s calling attention to what they say, and what they actually do which are at odds with each other. I thought at the time they left, that they were making the right call but they can’t leave it fully it seems.

But isn't it common knowledge that royal children were raised largely by nannies? I mean, he was hardly revealing the three secrets of Fatima by saying both he and his father were given little personal attention from their folks growing up. It was the done thing - raised predominantly by nannies until they could be shipped off to boarding school and then thrown into a life of service.

I think he's great for trying to break that cycle with his own little ones, as did his mother, to a certain extent, before him. I just don't get the ire that brings out in certain quarters at all.

beakerjoe

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Calling it hatred is being a tad overdramatic.

And speaking one’s mind provokes all kinds of reactions. I don’t see why speaking their minds should mean they shouldn’t be criticised.

I wont call it hatred.

For me they come off a disingenuous couple, particularly the fame hungry Meghan. She IMO fancies herself as the next Kim K and comes off incredibly fake.

Tilden Katz

dark crystal wrote: »

What's it to you if they had an opinion on the Royal family? You appear to have plenty of opinions yourself.

Bizarre to see the Royal family being defended to staunchly on an Irish site tbh. What have they ever done for us to warrant such devotion? I honestly don't get it!

dark crystal wrote: »

What mentality is it that beats up on two young people who dared to criticise an institution which effectively ruined one of their mother's lives?

But, yeah, let's continue abusing them for daring to have an opinion.

I mean, is it any more strange than how offended you seem to be on behalf of two former royals (who are still happy to trade off their royal connections).

JoChervil

Rubberchikken wrote: »

While I don't like Lily as a name, seems to have been around a bit, I can see how shortening it from the Queens nickname is nice.
Honouring Harry's mother is another nice touch.

I never get the hatred these two people seem to bring out in the media and others.
Other than speaking their minds, they haven't done much else to endenger such inexplicable hatred.

No one would have any problem, if they just spoke their minds. But they didn't, they lied and at least I need social justice and if someone lies and benefits from it, it should be pointed out. I just don't feel they should get away with it, so at least people can talk about it.

And no, I don't hate them, but I hate lies and manipulations and hurting others.

dark crystal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

I mean, is it any more strange than how offended you seem to be on behalf of two former royals (who are still happy to trade off their royal connections).

There's a ganging up mentality on this thread that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, simple as that. Bang of the Daily Mail comments section off it tbh.

I don't have a problem with anyone having an opinion, but this thread has been unnessesarily vitriolic in places imo.

beakerjoe

dark crystal wrote: »

There's a ganging up mentality on this thread that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, simple as that. Bang of the Daily Mail comments section off it tbh.

I don't have a problem with anyone having an opinion, but this thread has been unnessesarily vitriolic in places imo.

Its not a ganging up mentality. Its just the majority see Meghans bull**** for what it is and agree. We are hardly forming a lynch mob

Purple Mountain

I thought it was overkill going with Lilibet Diana.
Why not just Lily Diana?
They're really making a royal statement with Lilibet.

dark crystal

beakerjoe wrote: »

Its not a ganging up mentality. Its just the majority see Meghans bull**** for what it is and agree. We are hardly forming a lynch mob

Of course ye do, well done.

I must say, it is amazing how well one can know a stranger from just one interview alone. I mean, diagnosing personality disorders and everything! Quite the feat!

lrushe

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I thought it was overkill going with Lilibet Diana.
Why not just Lily Diana?
They're really making a royal statement with Lilibet.

From what I've read she will go by Lili like Harry is Henry on his birth cert but goes by Harry.

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

What mentality is it that beats up on two young people who dared to criticise an institution which effectively ruined one of their mother's lives?

But, yeah, let's continue abusing them for daring to have an opinion.

Your assumption is wrong. People here have no problem with criticising monarchy, they have problem with lies and hurtful accusations smeared over all senior royals

y0ssar1an22

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I thought it was overkill going with Lilibet Diana.
Why not just Lily Diana?
They're really making a royal statement with Lilibet.

or elizabeth diana.

i reckon they recently learned of the pet name while watching the crown

Purple Mountain

lrushe wrote: »

From what I've read she will go by Lili like Harry is Henry on his birth cert but goes by Harry.

I know that but just go with Lily full stop or Elizabeth.

JoChervil

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I thought it was overkill going with Lilibet Diana.
Why not just Lily Diana?
They're really making a royal statement with Lilibet.

They are. Have they asked the author of this expression for the permission to use it?

Purple Mountain

JoChervil wrote: »

They are. Have they asked the author of this expression for the permission to use it?

I read before that HM had to approve Archie's name.

valoren

dark crystal wrote: »

You've never met either Meghan Markle or Prince Harry, but you've somehow managed to armchair diagnose at least one of them as a "cluster B histrionic individual", whatever that is, whilst completely ignoring any valid, lived experiences they may have had whilst within the institution itself, something no one on this thread has actually experienced at all.

Anyway, have at it if it makes you feel good I guess *shrugs*

This defense of "you've never met them" is deflection. Of course only those who know them know what's actually going on, of course it's an armchair diagnosis and of course that should be approached with absolute caution. Bear in mind though that not many cluster B types will ever see the inside of a diagnostic office. It's not their fault, right?

The go to "armchair" diagnosis was always that Meghan is a narcissist. However, the term narcissist is starting to lose it’s meaning because just about any toxic or unpleasant person is simply labelled one by people who don’t know there are differences. You can have the traits but not the disorder. I simply point out that Meghan seems way closer to a histronic than a narcissist despite the fact I’m not (and no one who hasn’t treated her personally is) really qualified to say for sure. But considering I'm just using hypothesis to try to figure out her behavior - and, remember, she’s a major public figure actively courting public attention especially after voluntarily going on Oprah so this is allowed to a certain degree. With that in mind then I'm just aiming for accuracy and even those supportive of them as a couple should not be surprised that people will have a range of opinions on them and not all of them positive. Personality disorders exist. They can cause irrevocable damage and therein lies the disorder. Someone who is an unpleasant person might just be an asshole but if their behavior and conduct caused rifts, reputational damage and for people to fall out then it's likely always a disorder of some kind.

Does Meghan have one? I think so based on what I've seen. If there wasn't a pattern of historical personal alienation then she'd get the benefit of the doubt. You don't have to agree and that's not all based on one interview either. I have followed them since their engagement interview and am fascinated at the swiftness of the falling out and how quickly Harry was likely manipulated. Hitting the ground running!

Be right back

dark crystal wrote: »

Of course ye do, well done.

I must say, it is amazing how well one can know a stranger from just one interview alone. I mean, diagnosing personality disorders and everything! Quite the feat!

They decided to go ahead with the interview on global television despite knowing Prince Philip was so ill and part of their interview was based on lies. Not forgetting the more recent interviews Harry had on his own with Oprah. ..

tara73

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I thought it was overkill going with Lilibet Diana.
Why not just Lily Diana?
They're really making a royal statement with Lilibet.

that's what I thought too, why not just Lily, it's a cute name, I like it.

dark crystal

Be right back wrote: »

They decided to go ahead with the interview on global television despite knowing Prince Philip was so ill and part of their interview was based on lies. Not forgetting the more recent interviews Harry had on his own with Oprah. ..

This old chestnut...Philip was ancient and had been ill for yonks. Unlikely he saw or even cared about some interview in the US.

I keep hearing about these lies. What were they exactly and were they so terribly heinous as to warrant one or both of them being labelled narcissistic, histrionic, *insert another nasty name here* throughout this thread?

valoren

dark crystal wrote: »

This old chestnut...Philip was ancient and had been ill for yonks. Unlikely he saw or even cared about some interview in the US.

I keep hearing about these lies. What were they exactly and were they so terribly heinous as to warrant one or both of them being labelled narcissistic, histrionic, *insert another nasty name here* throughout this thread?

Yes, he was ancient and it was felt that he wouldn't have long left. The Royals were likely bracing for a bereavement. When it inevitably happened the coverage was so total that over 100k actually formally complained about the extensive coverage. The grieving Royals got a sympathy boost and it would seem callous to then subsequently broadcast an interview critical of the Royals while they were mourning it's patriarch. Can you see why the decision to broadcast and not, through some semblance of compassion, defer it was made? It was a brand building interview preying on sympathy shown while the Duke was still in hospital. To air the pre-recorded nterview AFTER the Duke's death would not have had the same self-serving, sympathy seeking result it initially had and would, considering that it was attacking a family in mourning, have backfired. You'd almost think there's something wrong with people being that self-possessed and self-absorbed that they'd approve such a bombshell interview while the Royal family were waiting for the inevitable.