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

Em ugh pop pfft

JoChervil wrote: »

Prince Philip lived very long and in different times, when PC was not on cards so much, so obviously made many mistakes. I never was interested in him. Only after his death reading some of his quotes I learned about it. But intention and context are also important. Some of them for me sounded like he was more cracking jokes than being offensive. But as I said I know very little about him and about these situations, so I can't judge. But I doubt any younger member of RF would behave in a racist way. Even I don't believe the Queen would do. If anything else, they all have enough good manners for it.

So....Megan Iives in different times.. what does any of that jargon have to do with anything?

JoChervil

Em ugh pop pfft wrote: »

The thing is about discrimination especially within families, you don't want to say it out straight to the people or only really register after the fact.

I didn't watch the interview and have no intention of watching it but imo, going by past things that were said by the rf prince Philip particularly who all are crying over here, it's no shock to me that there would be an issue with Megan's race. Perhaps some stupid comments that others might let go but **** it why should she? How many times can a man turn his head and all that...

The thing I find strange is the vitriol towards her and what if she's is telling the truth? ...that people were racist to her?

So if you haven't seen the interview, so you really can't discuss. If anything was said directly to her, she would have said it. But she only repeated Harry's words about ONE incident. So it was not MANY times turning her head....

JoChervil

Em ugh pop pfft wrote: »

So....Megan Iives in different times.. what does any of that jargon have to do with anything?

A century ago, were different standards and different things were accepted, so Prince Philip lived in times, when he said things, which are unbelievable to say for us now...

Em ugh pop pfft

Em ugh pop pfft wrote: »

The thing is about discrimination especially within families, you don't want to say it out straight to the people or only really register after the fact.

I didn't watch the interview and have no intention of watching it but imo, going by past things that were said by the rf prince Philip particularly who all are crying over here, it's no shock to me that there would be an issue with Megan's race. Perhaps some stupid comments that others might let go but **** it why should she? How many times can a man turn his head and all that...

The thing I find strange is the vitriol towards her and what if she's is telling the truth? ...that people were racist to her?

She never claimed anyone was racist towards her.
I think you need to actually watch the interview if you're going to give your opinion about it.

Em ugh pop pfft

Em ugh pop pfft wrote: »

Maybe she did experience racism within the rf?

If she did, then she should be very clear and shouting from the rooftops as to who the racist is, and what exactly the actions or words were. Own the accusation, rather than being allow innocent people to have the finger of suspicion pointed at them, while being vague enough to allow plausible deniability.

lrushe

Deleted User wrote: »

If she did, then she should be very clear and shouting from the rooftops as to who the racist is, and what exactly the actions or words were. Own the accusation, rather than being allow innocent people to have the finger of suspicion pointed at them, while being vague enough to allow plausible deniability.

I think if it wasn't for Harry she probably would, he seemed very firm on not naming anyone.
I watched that Discovery + documentary (Recollections May Vary) with the body language, speech experts etc. and they agreed the parts with her talking about suicide, the wedding before the wedding and her life in the rf she was telling the truth. I thought there might be a bit of bias as they were English but there didn't seem to be.
The one they queried was when asked if she made Kate cry, apparently she shook her head 'no' long after she'd answered the question which according to the expert could mean a) she was lying and trying to convince the audience or b) she didn't think she would be believed so she was trying extra hard to convince the audience.
It was interesting, saw the interview in a bit of a new light.

The naming of the baby seems to be a sign that they realise how badly the public's opinion of them has declined since the interview, both in the UK and increasingly in the US. The baby name is a way to latch on to the Queen's popularity and play on the public's goodwill. This going to sound harsh but I think the baby is just another weapon, along with mental health and racism, with which to boost popularity. But leaving all that aside, it's good news for them and you couldn't but be happy at the arrival of a healthy baby, so, good for them.

lrushe

Nice message there from Princess Eugenie.

https://people.com/royals/princess-eugenie-congratulates-prince-harry-meghan-markle-baby-daughter-lili/

Itssoeasy

lrushe wrote: »

Nice message there from Princess Eugenie.

https://people.com/royals/princess-eugenie-congratulates-prince-harry-meghan-markle-baby-daughter-lili/

Her royal highness of York ? I’ve never heard of her being called that. Also, princess Eugenie according to that link shares her son with her husband which I found a bizarre way to phrase. It’s a baby not a house.

Tilden Katz

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Her royal highness of York ? I’ve never heard of her being called that. Also, princess Eugenie according to that link shares her son with her husband which I found a bizarre way to phrase. It’s a baby not a house.

Well, Harry was HRH before he gave it up. So I presume all queenie’s grandchildren have that title.

Itssoeasy

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Well, Harry was HRH before he gave it up. So I presume all queenie’s grandchildren have that title.

It’s the of York part that I’d never heard her called. I know she has the HRH.

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It’s the of York part that I’d never heard her called. I know she has the HRH.

Her father is the Duke of York
They have always been known by that

Edit, reading this post, it comes across very arsey. I really didn't mean it to be!!

Itssoeasy

bubblypop wrote: »

Her father is the Duke of York
They have always been known by that

Edit, reading this post, it comes across very arsey. I really didn't mean it to be!!

I know who her dad is but her name was missing which I believe to give her her full title it’s HRH princess eugenie of York. They left out her name.

Multipass

Em ugh pop pfft wrote: »

No real opinion on it really but the backlash is insane imo.

She's curves, she's neurotic, too expressive talks too much etc. Megan is too sexy for the Royal Family Imo. I don't particularly like her or think she's attractive but she doesn't fit.

I don't follow the Royal Family but afaik prince Philip has a long history of racist and sexist remarks so that revelation is nothing new and would not surprise me if Megan was subjected to that from other members of the royal family either.

Haha, and there’s another royal with a history of racist remarks, and nazi uniform wearing, but he’s the victim now :pac:

end of the road

beakerjoe wrote: »

And if anyone believes Meghan isnt a huge narracisist, they are either in denial or not looking close enough.

or the actual reality which is, we know she isn't a narcissist, everything we know about her proves she isn't, and people so desperately want her to be that they have to twist the biggest non-issues in existence and spew them out into something completely different, to try and ultimately fail to fit the definition of narcissist and the narrative they have created.
it's of course not the only claim where this is happening.

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

And M & H hadn't gang up against RF, had they? How tasteful!

You see vitriol here, while we see vitriol in their interviews. So only you have a right to see it?

ultimately no, they didn't gang up against the rf.
the "vitrial" in their interviews is more people seeing what they want to see rather then actual vitrial, whereas some of what is contained within the thread could legitimately be called vitrial.

JoChervil wrote: »

And we are standing up for at least 3 (out of at least 4) innocent people being accused of racism...

well no, yee aren't really when we look at the thread.

more siding with the 3 because it's a way to attack the 2 you are against is the more likely.

livia21

It's gas listening to Irish go on like they know the couple..all they know is what they read in The Mail or The Sun.Sure didn't Harry have to wright a letter to request a meeting with his granny before he he gave up his royal duties.Prince Phillip didn't even live in the same palace as his missus.A very dysfunctial family.

tara73

woa, what's going on here, a brigade who doesn't have a clue, doesn't seem to have watched the Oprah interview at all but seem to have agreed on defending this couple no matter what.

watch the interview before you yourself build your opinion. a lot of the negative opinions from peole here, incl. myself, came after they gave this rotten interview and with that trashed the RF openly in the media.

valoren

Anyone remotely familiar with the Royals presumed it was Philip who was the racist. He has form for making gaffes. The idea that the interview was edited lent some weight to that presumption. Then Oprah said she was told it was neither him or the Queen. Well then "Who" was it becomes the obvious follow up. The whole thing was planned to happen after their year long review, and the financing that came with it, was up. It was calculated to do as much reputational damage as possible but they couldn't even get their story straight about the "concern" about a baby's potential skin tone. It would be wrong to explain away criticism of them as hatred. I see it more akin to schadenfreude from watching a pair of over-privileged people wanting their cake and to eat it too and then scrambling in an overtly public manner to cover themselves and their brand from any blame but getting egg on their face because it backfired because of too many logical fallacies to be in any way credible.

livia21

tara73 wrote: »

woa, what's going on here, a brigade who doesn't have a clue, doesn't seem to have watched the Oprah interview at all but seem to have agreed on defending this couple no matter what.

watch the interview before you yourself build your opinion. a lot of the negative opinions from peole here, incl. myself, came after they gave this rotten interview and with that trashed the RF openly in the media.

I wastched it..it was cringey..still don't get how folk are diagnosing Megan's mental health ..it was a TV show highly edited and if you think you know them personally after that "rotten" interview ..good luck

walshb

valoren wrote: »

Anyone remotely familiar with the Royals presumed it was Philip who was the racist. He has form for making gaffes. The idea that the interview was edited lent some weight to that presumption. Then Oprah said she was told it was neither him or the Queen. Well then "Who" was it becomes the obvious follow up. The whole thing was planned to happen after their year long review, and the financing that came with it, was up. It was calculated to do as much reputational damage as possible but they couldn't even get their story straight about the "concern" about a baby's potential skin tone. It would be wrong to explain away criticism of them as hatred. I see it more akin to schadenfreude from watching a pair of over-privileged people wanting their cake and to eat it to and scrambling to cover themselves from blame but getting egg in their face because it backfired.

Yep

It has nothing to do with hatred.

It is simply calling out two people who have conducted themselves like out and out toerags the past while..

tara73

valoren wrote: »

It would be wrong to explain away criticism of them as hatred. I see it more akin to schadenfreude from watching a pair of over-privileged people wanting their cake and to eat it to and scrambling to cover themselves from blame but getting egg in their face because it backfired.

I also think it's because Harry was always very popular, he was liked all over the world. Nobody could expect such a change in attitude in him. So it's not hate, it's more pure disappointment and the pure strangeness of his behaviour leading to this reaction from people.

If he was always obviously an asshole, nobody would have been surprised or that outraged.

dark crystal

tara73 wrote: »

woa, what's going on here, a brigade who doesn't have a clue, doesn't seem to have watched the Oprah interview at all but seem to have agreed on defending this couple no matter what.

Brigade, lol. If ever that was the pot calling the kettle black! Out of a thread of over 7000 posts, the vast majority of them negative towards these two strangers, less than a handful of posters don't jump on the hate bandwagon and we're suddenly a brigade! I got called a WUM simply for posing a question fgs!

watch the interview before you yourself build your opinion. a lot of the negative opinions from peole here, incl. myself, came after they gave this rotten interview and with that trashed the RF openly in the media.

They didn't 'trash' the royal family - they criticised certain aspects of the firm, same as Harry's mother did before them. She doesn't garner the same vitriol though, for some reason.

What do you care whether they spoke ill of the institution? What loyalty have you to them anyway?

livia21

tara73 wrote: »

I also think it's because Harry was always very popular, he was liked all over the world. Nobody could expect such a change in attitude in him. So it's not hate, it's more pure disappointment and the pure strangeness of his behaviour leading to this reaction from people.

If he was always obviously an asshole, nobody would have been surprised or that outraged.

But how do you know he changed...you most likely don't know him from Adam.it's weird being"dissapointed" with a complete stranger to you.It really is tabloid trash

dogbert27

They're now both on parental leave.....

"Yeah, em Spotify, Netflix et al thanks for signing those multi millions pound contracts with us but now we're both on parental leave (which doesn't really exist in the US) and we'll let you know when we feel like it is right for us to come back to honour those said contracts but don't go running to the press saying anything negative about this or we'll get our woke friends to attack and bury you!"

retro:electro

Calling your child Lillibet Diana is a strange way of shirking years of genetic pain and oppression from a racist and uncaring institution which you relentlessly denounce and create sensational media storms defending your reasons for leaving and insisting what a shlt time you had of it, and basically calling granny a shlte parent.. but hey

walshb

retro:electro wrote: »

Calling your child Lillibet Diana is a strange way of shirking years of genetic pain and oppression from a racist and uncaring institution which you relentlessly denounce and create sensational media storms defending your reasons for leaving and insisting what a shlt time you had of it, but hey

Yeh yeh...

But they’ve nothing against the Queen..

She’s sound!

dogbert27

walshb wrote: »

Yeh yeh...

But they’ve nothing against the Queen..

She’s sound!

Making sure they get a cut of the will! :pac:

dogbert27

Going back to parental leave:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9660061/Archie-excited-arrival-Lilibet-royal-watchers-say-Queen-surprised-name.html

: 'We're so used to seeing senior royals going back to work but Harry and Meghan are leading by example they offer up to 20 weeks parental leave at Archewell - it'll be several months off work for the pair of them'. He added in an interview with Good Morning America

Is that not another dig at the RF and probably in particular William and Kate?!

I mean WTF, "They offer up 20 weeks parental leave". Offer up to who?! Edit that I just saw they offer up to Archwell. Assuming it's Archwell staff. I wonder if it's paid leave???

In the US parental leave is 12 weeks and non paid:

most new parents are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a newborn or a newly adopted child. But there are conditions: they need to have worked for their employer for at least 12 months, have worked at least 1250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles.

My God they are martyrs offering up 20 weeks of parental leave. :rolleyes:

Immortal Starlight

I couldn’t give a toss about the British royal family. I think it’s ridiculous being expected to bow down to a bunch of pampered twits and being called a “subject” or “common”. However I do believe Meghan is totally fake and a liar. She seems to love all the drama while all the time protesting she wants to be left alone. Harry has really shown himself to be a solid gold twit and I think he should have kept well away from Oprah and sorted out any problems with his family at home in England. He would not have made so much money but maybe wouldn’t look as foolish as he does now.