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

Penn

newuser99999 wrote: »

People are really picking and choosing what they want to hear in this.

Totally agree. Even the thing about it being Kate who made Meghan cry, Meghan made clear that it wasn't intentional and Kate was lovely afterwards, sent her flowers etc.

But it's an important point for Meghan to have made in the interview because it shows how the media got it wrong and twisted it to make Meghan the bad guy to suit their narrative.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cienciano wrote: »

It's so easy to disprove? Go on then, prove it didn't happen.

It probably happened but by their own description, it can’t have been legal. Three people at a wedding isn’t enough. There needs to be minimum five people.

Deeec wrote: »

I watched all the interview last night.

- Race issues - Meg said the ' How dark will the baby be' conversation happened when she was pregnant. Harry said it happened before they were even married. If both have different versions of the event and when it happened how credible is it?
She mentioned race over and over again during the interview. If the Royal family had an issue with her being mixed race they would not have supported the marriage or funded the lavish wedding. She admitted she was welcomed into the family.

- They walked away from their Royal roles and fair play to them for doing this. However they still expected to be financially supported, have paid security and for their children to have titles. So they want all the benefits both dont want anything to do with the family or perform any royal duties????? The title thing was bizarre - she seemed to think Archie doesnt have a title because he is mixed race which is completely wrong. He would never have had a title.

- Kate - she said she didnt make Kate cry but turned it completely around that Kate made her cry. Her facial expressions and mannerisms showed she was lying on this. . She said she didnt want to make Kate look bad but lets face it thats exactly what she did.

- Meg completely avoided talking about her own dysfunctional family. She dumped them too to progress her career.

- Media - The media were unfair to her but I dont think the Royal family could do anything about this. Lets face it their was plenty to write about with Meg. She is an american actress from a poor background and a divorcee. She is the Medias dream.
Now she is using the Media for her own gain. They would have faired better if they just stayed quiet - the media would soon forgot about them.

Hopefully their new beautiful baby girl will be born in the summer. Of course its a given (IMO) they are going to call her Diana to engage the media once again ( and to annoy the inlaws of course)

I feel so sorry for Harry. He is like a lost Kitten. The family hopefully will welcome him back when it all goes wrong with Meg.

And they all lived happily ever after ......... Sadly I dont think so

Meghan’s background isn’t poor. It’s solidly middle class. Her father worked in lighting in the entertainment industry, her mother was a yoga teacher and I think a social worker. She went to a private school and an expensive university.

HildaOgdenx

Muahahaha wrote: »

One thing I did think interesting about the interview was Meghan revealing it was Kate who made her cry before the wedding. There are literally thousands of online articles from 2 years back stating that Meghan made Kate cry, i.e.the direct opposite of what actually happened. Im presuming Meghan is telling the truth here because if she wasnt there would be an almighty backlash from Kate & William.

I imagine William and Kate are very constrained in what they can and cannot say, in public, though.

wadacrack

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

Very interesting view from Meghan Kelly: https://youtu.be/ynhfXIHvOtU

She gets it. This Markle interview will not age well. The inconsistencies will catch up with her. Bringing mental health into it is very damaging to people who suffer in silence . Racism also of course.

MoonUnit75

newuser99999 wrote: »

She said she hadn’t been out of the house for months. It’s not like she’s off to lunch in central London everyday of the week.

People are really picking and choosing what they want to hear in this.

Yes, she did, but I don't believe her, otherwise Harry would have to have been complicit in keeping her in 'lockdown' as she claimed. It also doesn't jive with their infamous back to back holidays to Spain and France on private jets, going to climate change conferences and tours of Africa etc.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

SusieBlue wrote: »

That’s kind of the point though, there’s very little to no substance to most of the trash they print about Meghan either, and I’m not talking about avocado gate here, I’m talking about some of the more serious and damaging stories that have been released about it.

But do you believe the stuff written about Meghan? Because you really seem fully convinced of the rumours about William. You as good as said the rumours were true in your post.

There are a few different angles you can look at all of this from. On one hand: Here is a woman who married in to an institution that's no doubt strange. It isn't a stretch to me that she would feel trapped and that other members of the family also feel that way. As an American her knowledge of the Royals probably didn't stretch further than seeing them as celebrities. The inner workings wouldn't have been known to her.

Her experience was difficult and she isn't a person who shuffles off quietly. I think that may be a reason for all the hate she is now receiving. There's an attitude of how she shouldn't speak out, how she should be good and compliant and not cause "trouble".

On the other hand: It is a Royal family she married in to and with that comes obligations and duty. That's something she would have quickly found out I'm sure. During their SA tour when she spoke about how she was feeling, perhaps that was not the time and place. It wasn't about her. They were there to fulfill a role.

The interview itself: An opportunity to speak and give her side or a carefully orchestrated and vengeful act? I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It's not really "fanning out" though. If it's typical for grandchildren of the monarch to have security, then it seems logical that the rule would extend to the grandchildren of any heir apparent as well. It doesn't exactly make a lot of sense for Charles's grandchild to not have security until Charles is crowned.

Sure, it's a fair question if you were talking about Andrew's grandchildren. But that's because Andrew is not in line for the crown.

Rules aside, from the outside it would be fair to say the media created a situation in the UK where the safety of Harry's family was at risk, so it seems only logical that the right thing to do, would be to extend security protections to his children.

But the royals were unwilling to change the rules, so Harry had to do what he felt he had to do.

I would be 100% sure that the royals themselves have little input into their security.
There are no doubt policies in place and protection details done up, risk assessments continuously.
The police do not do the Royal families bidding, they are tasked with their security and safety and it is not the Royals decisions how that works.

Nqp15hhu

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

.

So how on earth did this victim travel to so many countries without a passport!?

Royals dont go through passport control
Coming off a BA flight from LHR to NCE ,the Duchess of York and Princess Eugenie were at the exit door while the rest of us filed past
They were brought by security out a side door in the gangway down steps to a waiting car
The rest of us went through non schengen immigration

retro:electro

retro:electro wrote: »

They probably made each other cry but Kate was the one who apologised, probably to ease things over before the big day. Meghan apparently wanted to break with tradition and have all the flower girls (bridesmaids?) wearing dresses with no socks or tights. Kate apparently took issue with this as any mother of a little girl would.

Charlotte would be wearing tights shoes that hadn’t had the benefit of been worn in without any protection for her foot. Imagine too if she tripped going up the steps and her little bum out for the whole world to see. I can see why Kate recommended wear something other than a bare leg but apparently Meghan couldn’t be told. Meghan seems to have taken the fact that Kate apologised as proof that Kate was the one who over stepped and was wrong. When it’s likely they both over stepped, but only one was decent enough to apologise. Any decent person would have let the mother’s of the little girls decide on such a trivial issue like tights. Control freaks on the other hand..

Yes. Meghan speaking about that.....just something about it didn't sit right with me. Absolutely if the press went bonkers with something that wasn't true and the powers that be didn't set them straight, that's pretty awful.

I think there's more to it though.

newuser99999

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, she did, but I don't believe her, otherwise Harry would have to have been complicit in keeping her in 'lockdown' as she claimed. It also doesn't jive with their infamous back to back holidays to Spain and France on private jets, going to climate change conferences and tours of Africa etc.

That was way after when she was talking about.

They went to Spain and France in August 2019.

KKkitty

Meghan is damned if she does/damned if she doesn't. Think about this for a minute. She tries to commit suicide and fails or worse case scenario she succeeds. It comes out about her mental health issues and everyone is asking why didn't she seek help. The flip side is this is deemed as yet another "attention seeking" ploy to get sympathy. After so many high profile celebrity deaths due to suicide some will jump on the bandwagon with Speak Out, It's Ok Not To Be Ok, I'm Here If You Need To Talk, Be Kind and other things. So Meghan said she had suicidal ideations. The trolls say she's a liar. It's not fair to her at all. Doesn't matter who you are. Mental health issues don't discriminate.

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a few different angles you can look at all of this from. On one hand: Here is a woman who married in to an institution that's no doubt strange. It isn't a stretch to me that she would feel trapped and that other members of the family also feel that way. As an American her knowledge of the Royals probably didn't stretch further than seeing them as celebrities. The inner workings wouldn't have been known to her.

Her experience was difficult and she isn't a person who shuffles off quietly. I think that may be a reason for all the hate she is now receiving. There's an attitude of how she shouldn't speak out, how she should be good and compliant and not cause "trouble".

On the other hand: It is a Royal family she married in to and with that comes obligations and duty. That's something she would have quickly found out I'm sure. During their SA tour when she spoke about how she was feeling, perhaps that was not the time and place. It wasn't about her. They were there to fulfill a role.

The interview itself: An opportunity to speak and give her side or a carefully orchestrated and vengeful act? I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

She didn't just turn up one day and marry Harry

She had plenty of time to get to know the Royals and there workings before she decided to be married into that life,


Ye know maybe in conversation to your boyfriend you might ask what is it like to be a prince , or maybe possible to speak to him about what his mother went through ,


Or is that to normal ?

Lisha

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. Meghan speaking about that.....just something about it didn't sit right with me. Absolutely if the press went bonkers with something that wasn't true and the powers that be didn't set them straight, that's pretty awful.

I think there's more to it though.

I think retro electric and yourself are right and there a lot more to that story... I reckon they both cried and Kate decided to be the bigger person and apologize as it was a few days before a family wedding (think we all know what that’s like). Kate apologizing cemented the illusion in Megan’s head that she is perfect and the whole world is wrongly against her.

Muahahaha

retro:electro wrote: »

They probably made each other cry but Kate was the one who apologised, probably to ease things over before the big day. Meghan apparently wanted to break with tradition and have all the flower girls (bridesmaids?) wearing dresses with no socks or tights. Kate apparently took issue with this as any mother of a little girl would.

Charlotte would be wearing tights shoes that hadn’t had the benefit of been worn in without any protection for her foot. Imagine too if she tripped going up the steps and her little bum out for the whole world to see. I can see why Kate recommended wear something other than a bare leg but apparently Meghan couldn’t be told. Meghan seems to have taken the fact that Kate apologised as proof that Kate was the one who over stepped and was wrong. When it’s likely they both over stepped, but only one was decent enough to apologise. Any decent person would have let the mother’s of the little girls decide on such a trivial issue like tights. Control freaks on the other hand..

yeah but its not about the ins and outs what happened (which sounds like a minor dispute anyway) , its about what was reported happened which turned out to be a total lie that millions of people believed. And a lie that was central to trashing Meghans reputation with the British public and casting one royal against the other. The narrative was basically Kate is Miss Perfect and Markle is a bitch. That cant of been nice for Markle but then the Royal Family compounded the matter even further by refusing to correct the lie in the public domain.

Put it this way, if Kate had of made the Queen cry over something and then it came out in the tabloid media that the Queen had actually made Kate cry then that would have been shut down by the Queen immediately, no way would the institution let such a lie go all around the world. Yet they did for Markle, instead of putting the record straight there was complete radio silence from all the Royals.

HildaOgdenx wrote: »

I imagine William and Kate are very constrained in what they can and cannot say, in public, though.

Not directly but they all have ways and means.....'a source said' just the same way 'a source said' the lie in the first place.

YellowLead

It’s being discussed on liveline at the moment btw

retro:electro

At the of the day, a lot of the interview was hinged on a lot of paranoid drivel and misinformation, lies if you consider them so. The whole thing was tainted for me when she said Archie was denied a title due to his skin colour. That and saying they were already married before the big spectacle that she didn’t want. (but invited Oprah to who she didn’t even know) She is on the one hand accusing the place of “perpetuating fabrications” about her and then comes out with an easily verifiable clanger like Archie was too dark to be a prince.. it just makes me question everything else she had to say. “Her truth” could all be a load of dreamt up fantasy for all we know. “The” truth is all that matters, not what she considers it to be. If she can peddle such easily refuted nonsense as facts then god knows what else she’s exaggerating about, things that are less easy to verify, like the apparent racial slur.

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

She didn't just turn up one day and marry Harry

She had plenty of time to get to know the Royals and there workings before she decided to be married into that life,


Ye know maybe in conversation your boyfriend you might ask what is it like to be a prince , or maybe possible to speak to him about what his mother went through ,


Or is that to normal ?

You're right. I was thinking about all the complexities we just wouldn't be privy to. Her husband though, a prince in that family would have been able to tell her everything.

retro:electro

retro:electro wrote: »

At the of the day, a lot of the interview was hinged on a lot of paranoid drivel and misinformation, lies if you consider them so. The whole thing was tainted for me when she said Archie was denied a title due to his skin colour. That and saying they were already married before the big spectacle that she didn’t want. (but invited Oprah to who she didn’t even know) She is on the one hand accusing the place of “perpetuating fabrications” about her and then comes out with an easily verifiable clanger like Archie was too dark to be a prince.. it just makes me question everything else she had to say. “Her truth” could all be a load of dreamt up fantasy for all we know. “The” truth is all that matters, not what she considers it to be. If she can peddle such easily refuted nonsense as facts then god knows what else she’s exaggerating about, things that are less easy to verify, like the apparent racial slur.

Well summed up.

KKkitty

KKkitty wrote: »

Meghan is damned if she does/damned if she doesn't. Think about this for a minute. She tries to commit suicide and fails or worse case scenario she succeeds. It comes out about her mental health issues and everyone is asking why didn't she seek help. The flip side is this is deemed as yet another "attention seeking" ploy to get sympathy. After so many high profile celebrity deaths due to suicide some will jump on the bandwagon with Speak Out, It's Ok Not To Be Ok, I'm Here If You Need To Talk, Be Kind and other things. So Meghan said she had suicidal ideations. The trolls say she's a liar. It's not fair to her at all. Doesn't matter who you are. Mental health issues don't discriminate.

Mental health issues don't discriminate but I assure that there are many many people who struggle with themselves and are also very self absorbed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cienciano wrote: »

Funny that Harry said it too but it's Meghan that gets the blame. And the person who actually said it is fine. Strange world we live in, a horrible comment like that at a pregnant lady and the vitriol is aimed at her because she "has no evidence", as if she needs to go around with a hidden mic all the time

Harry didn’t seem happy that she brought it up AND his account conflicted with hers.

GarySmith

True it's a televised interview, it seems Meghan really enjoyed giving the interview, but same not gonna believe anything said or asked either side, as we all don't know, so it's not hard only, also very far from believing.

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

That's grand, but if anyone on Harry's side wondered if the child would have black hair, that would be racist

I really wish someone would be asked to explain how this is racist exactly.

It seems like 100% of people agree it's not racist. And yet the premise seems to be unchallenged by the media except for people like Piers Morgan who polarises opinion on everything.

Two things I found odd.

1. Why Harry was not present for most of the interview?
2. Why did it start at the wedding when their story started a couple of years earlier? I would have thought in an Oprah interview there might be some discussion of the good times - how they met, those first dates, first kiss etc. But then any discussion of the positives might harm the victim narrative I suppose.

retro:electro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Two things I found odd.

1. Why Harry was not present for most of the interview?
2. Why did it start at the wedding when their story started a couple of years earlier? I would have thought in an Oprah interview there might be some discussion of the good times - how they met, those first dates, first kiss etc. But then any discussion of the positives might harm the victim narrative I suppose.

Because the whole thing was about clarifying the perpetuated mistruths, by perpetuating a lot of their own. It was all about showcasing Meghan as a saintly delicate little flower who has never put a foot wrong or upset anyone in her life. Everything had her placed firmly in the centre as victim #1. If she had shown some humility herself or even acknowledged that maybe she didn’t act in the right way at times herself it may have warmed me to her somewhat. But I’m always suspicious of people who present themselves as nothing other than victims of everyone else’s hand. It’s almost always never true.

James Brown

I saw interviews/vox pops with the British public in the run up to their wedding. 'We love Harry, don't like Meghan' one aul' dear said. I was saying to myself if they have a kid and it's too black there'll be murder. I'd say she laid it on but nonetheless the world got a glimpse of the royals and the institution beyond Hello magazine.
It's bad enough funding RTE and spin doctors for gombeen politicians, imagine funding those 'royal' in-breds?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Concretejungle wrote: »

As stated in the interview they are not looking for attention now and never wanted to do the Netflix deal but because Harry's security was whipped away from him he had to do something to be able to afford to have it again.

What was their plan then? Because surely they didn’t expect that that very expensive security would continue to be provided? And I’d imagine the cost would go up with their move abroad. So did they not think it through properly?

backwards_man

Muahahaha wrote: »

One thing I did think interesting about the interview was Meghan revealing it was Kate who made her cry before the wedding. There are literally thousands of online articles from 2 years back stating that Meghan made Kate cry, i.e.the direct opposite of what actually happened. Im presuming Meghan is telling the truth here because if she wasnt there would be an almighty backlash from Kate & William.

I suspect they both cried. Kate had just given birth to Louis 3 weeks before the wedding so presumably the incident occurred right before she gave birth or right after at the dress rehersal. Kate was likely an emotional wreck. And no doubt Megan was too. I have no doubt that Kate cried over the incident as was reported. But because she was the one who apologised Megan in her own mind thinks she was in the right. Why did she even bring it up in the interview, it was petty and an awfully unkind thing to do.

Was it selective reporting, probably, but that's life in the public eye. The Daily Mail also reported glowing articles about Megan when it suited them. They were pushing a narrative of the two women against each other. The British tabloids are awful to everyone, there is always someone being raked over the coals. Kate herself bore the brunt of it over the years.

But instead of shared empathising with Kate, Megan spins it to look like a victim at the expense of Kate who cant really defend herself.

gozunda

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Gammon hater was a reference to a person emotionally red-faced upset shouting brexit means brexit as experienced in the UK - did you not know that? Different races and cultures can also get red in the face.

As if that takes anything at all away from the fact the people are assuming in thick-fashion exactly how someone else interprets intent, racial or otherwise, in a conversation.

Case in point, though.. lol

Yes. Lol. Just because we're in Ireland doesn't mean we don't know what "gammon" means btw.

It's a slur directed at mainly WHITE Middle age men and yes as a phrase its has been called out as racist.

There is a new term of abuse in politics: a “gammon”. It refers to a middle-aged white man of a certain political persuasion. 

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/what-does-gammon-mean

Fairly ironic to go on about implied racism and then apply terms like that to others

Borrowed this - looks better here I reckon
:rolleyes:

McGinniesta

I remain neutral about Harry and Meghan as people. I don't know enough about them as people to form an opinion either way. I neither love them nor loathe them.

However, royalty as a concept or as an institution has no place in a modern society. It is horribly outdated.

I don't understand why it remains. I would have thought that it would have been debated at a national level during my lifetime but it hasn't happened yet.