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

Neyite

cnocbui wrote: »

And once again I ask you, what help do you think some 'therapist' is going to provide via a house call? All this Harryy should have done ths.. I can't believe Harry didn't have a phone number - as if that phone is a magic f*****g wand and a bloody wizard will turn up and -poof - all fixed. Doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

Had I been Harry, I'd have paid Johnathan Harmsworth a social visit.

Harry had been already in therapy since 2012 for his own mental health and had been for seven years according to this article written in 2019 which proves HE was in therapy during Meghan's pregnancy. But you say he wouldn't give the number of that therapist he has had a long and trusted rapport with to his seriously unwell pregnant wife because it doesn't work like that?


How does it work then?

yourdeadwright

McGinniesta wrote: »

I dare say that the royal family has faced greater crises than this in the past and have pulled through.

Nothing to do with the crisis more to do with the times ,

yourdeadwright

Harry seems to be a really **** husband,

Has all this information of what the Royal family do day to day and what life will be like and doesn't tell his Wife to be
Knows exactly what went on with mother and how she was treated but doesn't tell his Wife to be
Knows Philip is as racist as they come but doesn't tell his Wife to be
Has been in treatment and involved in numerous mental health orgs but doesn't give his wife to be a number

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Harry seems to be a really **** husband,

Has all this information of what the Royal family do day to day and what life will be like and doesn't tell his Wife to be
Knows exactly what went on with mother and how she was treated but doesn't tell his Wife to be
Knows Philip is as racist as they come but doesn't tell his Wife to be
Has been in treatment and involved in numerous mental health orgs but doesn't give his wife to be a number

Brilliant

This tells exactly what this pair are all about.

clairevoyant

Harry seems to be a really **** husband

he didn't really lick that off the grass though did he???

Cienciano

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

While I understand the skepticism people have with Harry and Meghans sincerity I can't for the life of me understand the sympathy the RF is getting, an utterly horrible institution who are unrivaled at being fakes.

I mean, a family that would do more to protect a pedophile member of their family than someone with mental health issues. Something not right there.

Penn

Palace responds to the interview:

A palace statement on behalf of the Queen said: “The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.

“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

Doesn't deny the comments were made, just that 'recollections may vary', which likely means they were made.

backwards_man

Ms2011 wrote: »

I don't think he meant he never went on a bike ride I think he was more referencing being able to spontaneously get on his bike and go for a ride like your child or mine would do.
In his life every little detail had to be pre planned or it was a photo op or they were trying to avoid paparazzi. Archie, it seems is enjoying a more down to earth upbringing and that's what he did not have as a child not necessarily bike rides.

I would say given his parents were not happily married meant that family moments like this were posed and likely fake, although they actaully look happy in some of the pictures. Diana went to great lengths to give the boys as many normal experiences as possible. I don't think its fair to say that he was in any way deprived of spontaneous moments as a child. He lived in vast mansions where he could have cycled up and down corridors or behind massive walled gardens. I am sure he did with his brother. He also went to theme parks and holiday'd on massive yachts. He did plenty of things that many kids dont get to do. They took the kids on holidays abroad, and it wasnt all in the glare of the media. Maybe he didnt ride a bike in the park but he went skiiing yearly. But again he plays the poor-me victim, instead of acknowledging the many wonderful moments he had as a child. Always the victim.

walshb

Penn wrote: »

Palace responds to the interview:



Doesn't deny the comments were made, just that 'recollections may vary', which likely means they were made.

They can’t deny them, because that would be seen as them calling Harry and Megan liars.but that doesn’t mean any nasty comments were made.

The response here is dignified...

Cienciano

Penn wrote: »

Palace responds to the interview:



Doesn't deny the comments were made, just that 'recollections may vary', which likely means they were made.

They might have been said in a "lighthearted" way. Inverted commas because it's definitely not something that should be said to a pregnant woman, but it may have been the way it was intended to be taken.

retro:electro

Understated statement but a bit of salt there too, which I adore. “We are saddened to learn the full extent” ie we never knew things were this bad as they never told us. “Whilst some recollections may vary”, is my personal favourite. I’ll be using that in the future. insinuating they’re being very liberal with the truth, maybe even fabricating it entirely or using a completely innocuous remark and framing it as a racial slur. Signed off with for the trio love xoxo queen Liz. Classy

Housefree

Cienciano wrote: »

They might have been said in a "lighthearted" way. Inverted commas because it's definitely not something that should be said to a pregnant woman, but it may have been the way it was intended to be taken.

It wasn't said to her, Harry ran back and told her. You ever have a mate you tell something and he runs back and tells the girlfriend and she blows it out of all context/proportion and the sap goes along with it

Ms2011

learnaboutmath wrote: »

I would say given his parents were not happily married meant that family moments like this were posed and likely fake, although they actaully look happy in some of the pictures. Diana went to great lengths to give the boys as many normal experiences as possible. I don't think its fair to say that he was in any way deprived of spontaneous moments as a child. He lived in vast mansions where he could have cycled up and down corridors or behind massive walled gardens. I am sure he did with his brother. He also went to theme parks and holiday'd on massive yachts. He did plenty of things that many kids dont get to do. They took the kids on holidays abroad, and it wasnt all in the glare of the media. Maybe he didnt ride a bike in the park but he went skiiing yearly. But again he plays the poor-me victim, instead of acknowledging the many wonderful moments he had as a child. Always the victim.

I don't ever remember him saying he had a crapoy childhood, he was merely drawing parallels between his childhood and the one he's trying to give his son..
We all try to give our kids things we never had, for him it's some normality.

Penn

walshb wrote: »

They can’t deny them, because that would be seen as them calling Harry and Megan liars.but that doesn’t mean any nasty comments were made.

The response here is dignified...

They can deny them, because that would be seen as one of them having made borderline racist comments (intentionally or otherwise).

"...some recollections may vary..." is pretty much an admission that they can't deny it happened.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

While I understand the skepticism people have with Harry and Meghans sincerity I can't for the life of me understand the sympathy the RF is getting, an utterly horrible institution who are unrivaled at being fakes.

It’s possible to question both the royal family and Harry and Meghan, ya know? Meghan might pretend that she knew nothing about the royal family before entering it but pretty all outsiders know that it’s a stuffy, protocol-laden goldfish bowl. If people aren’t underlining that in the thread, it’s IMO because it’s just such a given.

cnocbui

Neyite wrote: »

Harry had been already in therapy since 2012 for his own mental health and had been for seven years according to this article written in 2019 which proves HE was in therapy during Meghan's pregnancy. But you say he wouldn't give the number of that therapist he has had a long and trusted rapport with to his seriously unwell pregnant wife because it doesn't work like that?


How does it work then?

It doesn't work.

Has the therapist solved his issues? Obviously not, so in his position, why would you think said therapist is going to fix your wife's problems?

I have a son with Aspergers; you could give me a magic phone number for a well meaning therapist and I could spend €100,000 on therapy over ten years, but I'd still have a son with Aspergers at the end of those 10 years.

I can't believe how trite and simplistic a view you have of the efficaciousness of mental illness 'treatments'.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Penn wrote: »

Palace responds to the interview:



Doesn't deny the comments were made, just that 'recollections may vary', which likely means they were made.

A standard ‘Don’t explain, don’t complain’ response.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

retro:electro wrote: »

Understated statement but a bit of salt there too, which I adore. “We are saddened to learn the full extent” ie we never knew things were this bad as they never told us. “Whilst some recollections may vary”, is my personal favourite. I’ll be using that in the future. insinuating they’re being very liberal with the truth, maybe even fabricating it entirely or using a completely innocuous remark and framing it as a racial slur. Signed off with for the trio love xoxo queen Liz. Classy

:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiDC8-9QH_A

Ms2011

Penn wrote: »

Palace responds to the interview:



Doesn't deny the comments were made, just that 'recollections may vary', which likely means they were made.

I also find the use of the word 'recollection' as being very interesting. By its very meaning it means recovering a memory, so something must have been said in some capacity to induce at best a 'varying' memory of it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

cnocbui wrote: »

It doesn't work.

Has the therapist solved his issues? Obviously not, so in his position, why would you think said therapist is going to fix your wife's problems?

I have a son with Aspergers; you could give me a magic phone number for a well meaning therapist and I could spend €100,000 on therapy over ten years, but I'd still have a son with Aspergers at the end of those 10 years.

I can't believe how trite and simplistic a view you have of the efficaciousness of mental illness 'treatments'.

Well, that’s a defeatist attitude. I struck upon an anti-depressant that did wonders for my life.

cnocbui

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, that’s a defeatist attitude. I struck upon an anti-depressant that did wonders for my life.

It's realistic.

Ignoring Meghan being pregnant at the time, how long did it take to work?

Let me guess, it's safe for pregnant women and it was like magic, you took one pill and half an hour later you were doing a Riverdance impression.

Penn

Ms2011 wrote: »

I also find the use of the word 'recollection' as being very interesting. By its very meaning it means recovering a memory, so something must have been said in some capacity to induce at best a 'varying' memory of it.

If you take that section out of the statement, it still works

A palace statement on behalf of the Queen said: “The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.

“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. These issues are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

The addition of "While some recollections may vary..." implies at the very least that there were some discussions along those lines.

At first thought, I guessed it was Prince Philip who made the remarks about Archie's skin tone, but now, having watched the interview, the more and more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think it was actually William.

Who has the power to hurt us the most? Those who are closest to us.

It would explain the widening fo the rift between the brothers. I can't explain it, but I just feel he is/was the closest to Harry, has had the closest experience to Harry, and I truly believe he is the one that Harry will always protect to the end because of their shared experience. But I think Harry is deeply hurt by the rift with William.

Harry said that if he revealed who it was it would do a lot of damage. I truly don't think Harry's motive is to bring down the monarchy, and who is going to be the longterm future of the monarchy? William.

At first thought, I guessed it was Prince Philip who made the remarks about Archie's skin tone, but that feels too obvious. JMHO. I guess we'll never really know.

walshb

Penn wrote: »

They can deny them, because that would be seen as one of them having made borderline racist comments (intentionally or otherwise).

"...some recollections may vary..." is pretty much an admission that they can't deny it happened.

You don’t understand the sovereign, the RF

They’re supposed to be above squabbling, arguing and commenting on issues like this..hence the very gentle and considered and diplomatic response

Of course, what they really want to say is is “piss right off, you two charlatans. Petty vindictive attention seeking troublemakers.”

But, it’s not what the RF do, at least not publicly.

And not denying does not at all mean nasty racist comments were made.

Markle made a throwaway comment about “someone.” Deliberately designed so it could not be really disproved. Devious woman.

retro:electro

It could have been said by anyone from Philip to George and it could have been something as sinister as “but she is bloody black you idiot, we cannot have a black child in the monarchy” to something as innocent as “oh I wonder whose colouring the child will have”, or “will the child look like Meghan or Harry”. Meghan herself admitted she never even heard what was said, it was just passed on by Harry and without context, it’s pointless speculating about who said it or what their intentions may have been. I’m of the view that if something truly intentionally racist was said then we would know all about it.

Quantum Erasure

cnocbui wrote: »

It's realistic.

Ignoring Meghan being pregnant at the time, how long did it take to work?

Let me guess, it's safe for pregnant women and it was like magic, you took one pill and half an hour later you were doing a Riverdance impression.

I think your issue is unrelated to anything that may have happened with Meghan,

Penn

walshb wrote: »

You don’t understand the sovereign, the RF

They’re supposed to be above squabbling, arguing and commenting on issues like this..hence the very gentle and considered and diplomatic response

Of course, what they really want to say is is “piss right off, you two charlatans. Petty vindictive attention seeking troublemakers.”

But, it’s not what the RF do, at least not publicly.

As per my next post above, removing the line "While some recollections may vary" still meets the requirements of a gentle, considered, diplomatic response.

The inclusion of it, given how carefully and considered such statements have to be worded and how many departments would be involved in drafting it, indicates that they cannot deny there is some element of truth to it.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

Harry had been already in therapy since 2012 for his own mental health and had been for seven years according to this article written in 2019 which proves HE was in therapy during Meghan's pregnancy. But you say he wouldn't give the number of that therapist he has had a long and trusted rapport with to his seriously unwell pregnant wife because it doesn't work like that?


How does it work then?

There can be an ethical consideration for therapists when it comes to seeing the partner/family member of a client past or present. I don't about the UK but in Ireland many won't do it.

Also it can be uncomfortable for the client to know that everything they have shared with their therapist, issues maybe relating to someone close to them, now that someone close will be attending "their" therapist.

Quantum Erasure

Deleted User wrote: »

At first thought, I guessed it was Prince Philip who made the remarks about Archie's skin tone, but now, having watched the interview, the more and more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think it was actually William.

Who has the power to hurt us the most? Those who are closest to us.

It would explain the widening fo the rift between the brothers. I can't explain it, but I just feel he is/was the closest to Harry, has had the closest experience to Harry, and I truly believe he is the one that Harry will always protect to the end because of their shared experience. But I think Harry is deeply hurt by the rift with William.

Harry said that if he revealed who it was it would do a lot of damage. I truly don't think Harry's motive is to bring down the monarchy, and who is going to be the longterm future of the monarchy? William.

At first thought, I guessed it was Prince Philip who made the remarks about Archie's skin tone, but that feels too obvious. JMHO. I guess we'll never really know.

Just saw a clip of Meghans father on the news there, saying it was probably, hopefully, just somebody asking a stupid question, 'how dark will the baby be?' Rather than anything racist... I'd be inclined to agree with him

bitofabind

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I could not agree more.

Somebody upthread said that Meghan just wasn’t very likeable. I have to agree. That doesn’t excuse any of the crappy things that have happened to her of course. But why isn’t she likeable? For me there’s a lack of humility and an ever-present tendency to lean into victimhood. Nothing is ever her fault. Anyone I’ve personally known with that trait is a self-absorbed nightmare. She called herself courageous in the interview. I slightly cringed at that. That’s for others to say, Meghan.

Yeah that was me. She is unlikeable. She does seem to relish in her victimhood and be grossly lacking in self-awareness. She also has a trail of abandoned friendships and family relationships in her wake and in this Oprah interview, she seemed a bit too comfortable in the spotlight, mostly without her husband, and with a close ally that clearly has been pressing for this interview for quite a long time. And whose agenda was partly building her own brand in the U.S, so spare the gotcha questions please.

So there's ALLLL of that. Which makes it very easy to dislike her and feed into the media frenzy that supports the worst possible assumptions about her. But I think it's important to separate that from the system, people can be dislikeable, people can be narcissistic and still not be deserving of the tirade of life-threatening abuse that's thrown their way by a media that profits off of that public sentiment and an institution that turns a blind eye because it helps them to hide their own deeper secrets (Prince Andrew Exhibit A). That's been the RF's MO for decades, throw adjacent-women to the tabloid/wolves that's keeping them in business and protected from the rule of law that us peasants have to closely follow.

Meghan may be a bit of a madam, and Harry's a broken man, he's not broken because of Meghan. He's been betrayed and traumatised by it all and no, his tens of millions in the bank don't change any of that though it's easy to feel no pity because of all of the privilege he's grown up with.