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

Ms2011

bubblypop wrote: »

So you think that Kate should have just not told her about royal protocol?
How does anyone learn anything if no-one tells them?
Harry had to tell her to curstey to the queen when she met her, who do you think should tell her?
I'm not sure why you just presume it's a lie? Royal protocol dictates a lot of things that may seem ridiculous to ordinary non royals

There are lots of royal protocols by all accounts, some more heavily enforced than others, I can see tights/socks being one of them.

Lillyfae

Ms2011 wrote: »

But I don't know how anyone knows how uncomfortable or otherwise the shoes wear.
If they were those little ballet types they'd be perfectly fine for however long it took to walk up the aisle, tights/socks could then be put on for the reception if it were that big a deal.

Not really- those pretty ones from Zara are killers, but the ugly ones from Richter are grand. It depends on a lot, and it's not like Kate was allowed to sit in the car holding the shoes to put them on just before she got out. I doubt Meghan would have done this, somehow...

Keyzer

Lillyfae wrote: »

It doesn't just seem ridiculous. Imagine "having" to curtsey to someone :P

banie01

A drum I banged over on the closed thread and, one I think the palace statement took a quite pointed shot at is this.

Meghan and Harry have claimed during the Oprah interview that they were married is secret 3 days before the "spectacle" wedding.

Lovely story about wanting a moment for "them" and not the world.
So they gave the archbishop a bell, he sauntered over to Kensington and 3days before they had the public wedding, the 3 of them had a secret back garden wedding.

Now, this may have happened as a run through and may well have been meaningful to them both.
It was not a wedding though.
A wedding requires a minimum of 5, the bride, groom, celebrant and 2 witnesses.
It requires signature of the register by all present.
If that doesn't happen?
Well, then fairly self evidently there was no wedding.

Yet, both Meghan and Harry regaled Oprah and the world with their fairytale secret wedding.
If their "recollection" of when they married is so flawed?
Surely their recollection of everything else is open to similar flaws?
This is what I think the palace statement was aiming at.

The confidence of both of them in their claim, is frightening.
Is it delusion? Folie a deux? Harry placating Meghan or vice versa?

Oprah was a very sympathetic interviewer, no hard questions.
I do not doubt Meghan had issues settling in, nor that Harry wanted to break free.
Telling such a simply refutable lie as a centrepiece of their interview?
Gives all their claims an air of the fantastical, no matter how grounded in truth they may feel they are IMO.

anewme

Couple of ways of looking at the flower girl stuff..

The bride felt the dresses looked better without tights - her day.

The flowergirls Mam wanted tights as its protocol. (Where I wonder) But she could have been concerned about blisters on Charlotte's feet.

It is one if those issues that usually blow up at a Wedding - stress and tensions lead to silly rows.

Maybe Royal Proticol should be challenged if someone does not want children wearing tights, its hardly a hanging offence. So what?

Should the Royals be less focussed on rubbish like this and more concerned about Andrew being held accountable for his actions. I wonder what the protocol manual said about him.

Ms2011

anewme wrote: »

Couple of ways of looking at the flower girl stuff..

The bride felt the dresses looked better with tights - her day.

The flowergirls Mam wanted rights as its protocol. (Where I wonder) But she could have been concerned about blisters in Charlotte's feet.

It is one if those issues that usually blow up at a Wedding - stress and tensions lead to silly rows.

Maybe Royal Proticol should be challenged if someone does not want children wearing tights, its hardly a hanging offence. So what?

Should the Royals be less focussed on rubbish like this and more concerned about Andrew being held accountable for his actions. I wonder what the protocol manual said about him.

Besides the argument itself isn't the issue, as I've said before it was just used as an example to show how a small disagreement can be twisted and blown out of proportion in the press.

Keyzer

banie01 wrote: »

Oprah was a very sympathetic interviewer, no hard questions.

As I said previously, would have been savage if she'd whipped out the photo of Harry in Nazi regalia surrounded by mates in KKK outfit and Blackface and asked him to explain that. Youthful exuberance my @rse.

Anyroads, my work here is done. I leave you all to argue amongst each other on this most pointless and vapid of topics.

Farewell and adieu.

banie01

Keyzer wrote: »

.

Anyroads, my work here is done. I leave you all to argue amongst each other on this most pointless and vapid of topics.

Farewell and adieu.

You're right tbh
I've posted once here and I think 3 times on the closed thread and feel kinda dirty for it.
I really don't care, not that my lengthy post makes it seem that way.
My interest in this is mainly a legal one, from a students standpoint.
From the frankly shocking to me court win regards the letter, to the procedural bolloxology of what, when how and who...

That's it, that's all!
I swear.

walshb

anewme wrote: »

Couple of ways of looking at the flower girl stuff..

The bride felt the dresses looked better without tights - her day.

The flowergirls Mam wanted tights as its protocol. (Where I wonder) But she could have been concerned about blisters on Charlotte's feet.

It is one if those issues that usually blow up at a Wedding - stress and tensions lead to silly rows.

Maybe Royal Proticol should be challenged if someone does not want children wearing tights, its hardly a hanging offence. So what?

Should the Royals be less focussed on rubbish like this and more concerned about Andrew being held accountable for his actions. I wonder what the protocol manual said about him.

Let us know when you have the RFs version as well.....may be better able to make a call...

But, even without their side: The very fact a near 40 year old woman is on a global talk show even discussing such silliness tells me all I need to know.

Princess Calla

Lillyfae wrote: »

Ditto for the flower allergy if true- no one could watch their child being miserable because the bride won't compromise. I've been a bride and there's no way I'd put a child through discomfort for something so trivial, you'd want to be a right wagon to do that tbh.

!

I didn't think it was an allergy...I thought the issue was the flower was poisonous if ingested by a child.

Now it was the same flower that Kate and Camilla had in their bouquets and all was fine but Meghan is a potential child murderer......I guarantee if she had gone for a different flower she'd have been crucified too.... absolutely no winning for her.

Lillyfae

Princess Calla wrote: »

I didn't think it was an allergy...I thought the issue was the flower was poisonous if ingested by a child.

Maybe the funny breeding practices are more troubling than we previously thought if Charlotte (at the age of 5) was at risk of eating a bouquet of flowers :pac:

Princess Calla

Lillyfae wrote: »

Maybe the funny breeding practices are more troubling than we previously thought if Charlotte (at the age of 5) was at risk of eating a bouquet of flowers :pac:

partyguinness

I guess we can now say that we have reached peak First World Problems.

dogbert27

Their PR team issued a warning to the BBC on Monday not to use only "white old men" in covering the interview

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9348947/Harry-Meghans-PR-sent-bizarre-warning-BBC-not-use-old-white-men-coverage.html

Is that not:

a) racist?
b) ageist?
c) sexist?

Funny demands from the Duke and Duchess of Woke!

Mr_Muffin

No sign of Meghan going to being an actress to support the family? Seemed like a pretty lucrative career for her.

anewme

dogbert27 wrote: »

Their PR team issued a warning to the BBC on Monday not to use only "white old men" in covering the interview

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9348947/Harry-Meghans-PR-sent-bizarre-warning-BBC-not-use-old-white-men-coverage.html

Is that not:

a) racist?
b) ageist?
c) sexist?

Funny demands from the Duke and Duchess of Woke!

The Daily Fail has been the vehicle used by Piers Morgan to carry out his personal vendetta against Meghan Markle.

They've gone into complete overdrive since the interview.

Princess Calla

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

No sign of Meghan going to being an actress to support the family? Seemed like a pretty lucrative career for her.

When Grace Kelly married into the Royal family she had to give up acting.

Harry did mention that there were conversations about if the institution could afford her or if she would continue to work.

I watched suits from the beginning and when she and Mike got together there was a fair few bedroom scenes , light stuff , bra on display etc.

When she started her relationship with Harry there was very little if any bedroom scenes....I remember thinking at the time there must have been an intervention with the script writers.

So if she'd continued acting as a royal she'd probably only be allowed kindergarten teacher roles, and nothing showing any underwear etc.

However even during Suits she did alot of campaign work for equality etc so she may go more in that direction.

dogbert27

anewme wrote: »

The Daily Fail has been the vehicle used by Piers Morgan to carry out his personal vendetta against Meghan Markle.

They've gone into complete overdrive since the interview.

That's not addressing the question of her PR team's instructions though.

extra gravy

dogbert27 wrote: »

Their PR team issued a warning to the BBC on Monday not to use only "white old men" in covering the interview

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9348947/Harry-Meghans-PR-sent-bizarre-warning-BBC-not-use-old-white-men-coverage.html

Is that not:

a) racist?
b) ageist?
c) sexist?

Funny demands from the Duke and Duchess of Woke!

I think you should more worried about the fact that you believe what's written in that rag.

strandroad

dogbert27 wrote: »

Their PR team issued a warning to the BBC on Monday not to use only "white old men" in covering the interview

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9348947/Harry-Meghans-PR-sent-bizarre-warning-BBC-not-use-old-white-men-coverage.html

Is that not:

a) racist?
b) ageist?
c) sexist?

Funny demands from the Duke and Duchess of Woke!

The actual quote in the media package was that they suggested to use a "broad range of contributors", don't fall for Daily Mail headlines.

dogbert27

strandroad wrote: »

The actual quote in the media package was that they suggested to use a "broad range of contributors", don't fall for Daily Mail headlines.

"white old men" was also in quotation

So don't believe everything in the media, believe everything Harry and Meghan say. :rolleyes:

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

Well I suppose its a personality thing then cos if it was my daughter I'd forgo the socks/tights if the bride wished.
I have a 5 year old daughter and I don't see the issue.

Even if new shoes rubbed against her feet?

Cienciano

One of the good outcomes of this story is how outraged the Daily Mail/Express/Sun readers are about it. Any Daily Mail article on it has thousands of comments of what can only be described as pure outrage. It's hilarious, the typical brexit little englander really doesn't like it.

sebdavis

Cienciano wrote: »

One of the good outcomes of this story is how outraged the Daily Mail/Express/Sun readers are about it. Any Daily Mail article on it has thousands of comments of what can only be described as pure outrage. It's hilarious, the typical brexit little englander really doesn't like it.

She is everything those readers hate. A successful woman of colour. What's not to hate?

If she was white, like Princess Diana you would see the hate then for the royal family again.

walshb

sebdavis wrote: »

She is everything those readers hate. A successful woman of colour. What's not to hate?

If she was white, like Princess Diana you would see the hate then for the royal family again.

Meghan would absolutely love you....!

dogbert27

walshb wrote: »

Meghan would absolutely love you....!

It's almost cult like adoration

Be right back

If the argument was about the flower girls wearing tights or not, surely a bride would want them to be comfortable for the day? Royal protocol or not.

forumdedum

banie01 wrote: »

A drum I banged over on the closed thread and, one I think the palace statement took a quite pointed shot at is this.

Meghan and Harry have claimed during the Oprah interview that they were married is secret 3 days before the "spectacle" wedding.

Lovely story about wanting a moment for "them" and not the world.
So they gave the archbishop a bell, he sauntered over to Kensington and 3days before they had the public wedding, the 3 of them had a secret back garden wedding.

Now, this may have happened as a run through and may well have been meaningful to them both.
It was not a wedding though.
A wedding requires a minimum of 5, the bride, groom, celebrant and 2 witnesses.
It requires signature of the register by all present.
If that doesn't happen?
Well, then fairly self evidently there was no wedding.

Yet, both Meghan and Harry regaled Oprah and the world with their fairytale secret wedding.
If their "recollection" of when they married is so flawed?
Surely their recollection of everything else is open to similar flaws?
This is what I think the palace statement was aiming at.

The confidence of both of them in their claim, is frightening.
Is it delusion? Folie a deux? Harry placating Meghan or vice versa?

Oprah was a very sympathetic interviewer, no hard questions.
I do not doubt Meghan had issues settling in, nor that Harry wanted to break free.
Telling such a simply refutable lie as a centrepiece of their interview?
Gives all their claims an air of the fantastical, no matter how grounded in truth they may feel they are IMO.

I would not be surprised if they were both thick enough to think the rehearsal was a wedding.

Could it be that H&M knew a bullying case against M was on the way and decided to play the mental health/race card?

Cienciano

sebdavis wrote: »

She is everything those readers hate. A successful woman of colour. What's not to hate?

If she was white, like Princess Diana you would see the hate then for the royal family again.

I bet plenty of the same people hated Diana at the time buy now swear they always loved her. Anything different is bad.

anewme

Be right back wrote: »

If the argument was about the flower girls wearing tights or not, surely a bride would want them to be comfortable for the day? Royal protocol or not.

There are those little footsie sock things that can be worn inside shoes but cant be seen if people want the look of no tights but don't want shoes cutting.