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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I have to say, I do remember wondering when the new broke of Harry and Meghan’s relationship how Meghan would cope with how much she would have to give up. I wondered did she realise exactly how much she would lose and how constrained she’d be.

People dismiss her acting career and, sure, she was no A-lister. But she was on a pretty watched show. I knew who she was personally despite not watching Suits (except when desperate :pac:). She’d have been used to some attention so maybe she thought that would prepare her for the Royal life but I had my doubts. They are different, the B-list actor fame and the Royal fame. You’d have so much more freedom with the former.

Did she realise how difficult it would be to have to drop everything in Canada and America? To no longer be able to tweet about anything political (which I understand she did pre-Harry). To not just be able to, I don’t know, grab her bike and go for a cycle. Or just pop down to the supermarket for a few bits. Sunbathe in a park if the mood struck her. I put myself into her shoes. My life is constrained by illness now so I imagined pre-illness me. I just can’t imagine not being able to go off for a cycle whenever I wanted.

I remember reading a list of all the stuff she’d have to give up and thinking “Godspeed, Meghan, I hope it works out” but I was doubtful. Once the honeymoon period is over, all you’re left with is life in a protocol-laden, stuffy gilded cage. So I don’t find her mental health claims hard to believe at all.

NSAman

end of the road wrote: »

megan got to pick and choose how she behaved and decided along with her husband that they would quit being senior members so they could live their own life.

That is all fine and dandy, but stop using the family you chose to quit to earn money from.

If they are living their own life, why are they CHOOSING to gripe about a family they quit from?

I suppose Meghans family wouldn't be that interesting to talk about and she wouldn't have gotten a 100M Netflix deal from it.

Media whores... both of them!

cnocbui

walshb wrote: »

I think the worst aspect of the thread is not the believing or disbelieving of the mental health card, but the claim from some posters that because she is a woman of color, people are all against her.....that is both absurd and dangerous.

That is not to say that people do not behave like this.....but on this thread I have not seen it...

Of course people are racist. Racism is everywhere...it's part of human nature...

But not everyone who is opposed to Meghan here is opposed due to her being a woman of color, and to suggest this is appalling.

It's not because she's a woman of colour, it's because she is a woman. Lindy Chamberlain, Kate McCann, Meghan Markle, Ellen DeGeneris, and lets not forget one of the originals, Joan of Arc. Cleopatra was a cunning vile whore and temptress. Have you heard of the trouble Helen of Troy caused? Hillary Clinton is another recent one.

40,000 women tortured burned at the stake, drowned, etc by The men of the Catholic church.

A lot of men in or with power are nothing less than mysogynists. Women make great scapegoats when you want to distract from the failings, stupidities and low charachter of men.

Kermit.de.frog

I think it was William with the remarks

Princess Calla

gozunda wrote: »

Get the general impression she doesn't do permanence too well. She's previously divorced, is estranged from her family and now apparently estranged from her family in law after roasting them on US talk TV.

.

She was with her husband 7 years before they married and 2 after....it was a no fault divorce.....it wasn't exactly a flash in the pan relationship.

She's estranged from her father who sold her out and is continuing to do so.....so I don't really blame her.

She's estranged from his children from his first marriage (who are also all estranged from each other) given his children were 17 and 15 when meghan was born I'm not sure how much of a "close" relationship they would have had, especially as they didn't live with her. ....she says herself she viewed herself as an only child.

You'd think she walked out on "The Walton's" or maybe the "Brady Bunch" they way people are saying she's estranged

partyguinness

Well, there is a lot to be said for marrying within your community. Harry didn't do that- he is now a sitting duck.

strandroad

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think it was William with the remarks

Jaysus. When was that?
"We are not a racist family" memes incoming...

Neyite

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I have to say, I do remember wondering when the new broke of Harry and Meghan’s relationship how Meghan would cope with how much she would have to give up. I wondered did she realise exactly how much she would lose and how constrained she’d be.

People dismiss her acting career and, sure, she was no A-lister. But she was on a pretty watched show. I knew who she was personally despite not watching Suits (except when desperate :pac:). She’d have been used to some attention so maybe she thought that would prepare her for the Royal life but I had my doubts. They are different, the B-list actor fame and the Royal fame. You’d have so much more freedom with the former.

Did she realise how difficult it would be to have to drop everything in Canada and America? To no longer be able to tweet about anything political (which I understand she did pre-Harry). To not just be able to, I don’t know, grab her bike and go for a cycle. Or just pop down to the supermarket for a few bits. Sunbathe in a park if the mood struck her. I put myself into her shoes. My life is constrained by illness now so I imagined pre-illness me. I just can’t imagine not being able to go off for a cycle whenever I wanted.

I remember reading a list of all the stuff she’d have to give up and thinking “Godspeed, Meghan, I hope it works out” but I was doubtful. Once the honeymoon period is over, all you’re left with is life in a protocol-laden, stuffy gilded cage. So I don’t find her mental health claims hard to believe at all.

I felt from the beginning it would be a massive culture shock for her. On her part I imagine she thought it was similar to A-list Hollywood type of lifestyle and likely the philanthropy and patronages would have appealed to her as well. I'm sure she heard a few of the rules about nail varnish or wedge heels and thought, grand, I can live with those but not fully realising how much of her entire life would have been consumed.

And I wondered too that given how lengthy Harry's previous relationships were and that they ended due to the women deciding royal life wasn't for them that the speed with which he courted & proposed to Meghan was so that by the time she did fully realise what she'd let herself in for, it would be too late for her to change her mind.

At least William made sure his wife had lots of time to see what Royal life fully entailed and when she did official join the family, she knew the ropes and was able to make an informed choice.

partyguinness

strandroad wrote: »

Jaysus. When was that?
"We are not a racist family" memes incoming...

To be fair it's not like he is there with a whip.


In such cultures they want to carry guests like that (they insist)- I bet he was damn uncomfortable but to say "No" is also deemded an insult to the locals so he can't win.

retro:electro

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I have to say, I do remember wondering when the new broke of Harry and Meghan’s relationship how Meghan would cope with how much she would have to give up. I wondered did she realise exactly how much she would lose and how constrained she’d be.

People dismiss her acting career and, sure, she was no A-lister. But she was on a pretty watched show. I knew who she was personally despite not watching Suits (except when desperate :pac:). She’d have been used to some attention so maybe she thought that would prepare her for the Royal life but I had my doubts. They are different, the B-list actor fame and the Royal fame. You’d have so much more freedom with the former.

Did she realise how difficult it would be to have to drop everything in Canada and America? To no longer be able to tweet about anything political (which I understand she did pre-Harry). To not just be able to, I don’t know, grab her bike and go for a cycle. Or just pop down to the supermarket for a few bits. Sunbathe in a park if the mood struck her. I put myself into her shoes. My life is constrained by illness now so I imagined pre-illness me. I just can’t imagine not being able to go off for a cycle whenever I wanted.

I remember reading a list of all the stuff she’d have to give up and thinking “Godspeed, Meghan, I hope it works out” but I was doubtful. Once the honeymoon period is over, all you’re left with is life in a protocol-laden, stuffy gilded cage. So I don’t find her mental health claims hard to believe at all.

It was a massive culture shock for her. I honestly think unless you grew up in the UK you would have no idea of what you’re getting yourself in for. There’s a lot to be said for passively taking all of this stuff in as you’re growing up, and even then it would be a massive adjustment. You’re basically required to leave who you are and all that you stand for at the door and just become a boring bland ribbon cutter and hand shaker. Having said that, I don’t think they were as stifled by protocol as they seem to be portraying. I think they had a lot of freedom to break with tradition frequently did so

Sir Oxman

strandroad wrote: »

Jaysus. When was that?
"We are not a racist family" memes incoming...

Oh for sure, ripe for memes.:D


But ask any CSJ warrior do they believe black people have no agency or could that mullarkey possibly be a tradition in their country and you'll be branded a fascist/nazi/racist (yes, all three!) in the blink of a virtuous signal

clairevoyant

Sharon Osborne went off on one on some chat show in America it seems too defending Piers Morgan for speaking "his truths" and voicing his opinions. I like neither piers nor Sharon BUT I'm with them on this furore.

Meghan in my opinion was like someone who binge watched The Crown and decided to fling bits of it into "her alleged awful life in Royalty" and run like hell with it .............don't forget Oprah is also an actress.

PC culture is gone way overboard - nobody can say anything (including the Royals with what I firmly believe were natural normal family wonderings about what the baby might look like) now without being tainted as a bully, a racist, a sexual predator/abuser/rapist, somebody always "taking offence" and hash tagging sh1te on social media to trend - generally at the cost of some gender or lifestyle or whatever.

gozunda

Princess Calla wrote: »

She was with her husband 7 years before they married and 2 after....it was a no fault divorce.....it wasn't exactly a flash in the pan relationship.
She's estranged from her father who sold her out and is continuing to do so.....so I don't really blame her. She's estranged from his children from his first marriage (who are also all estranged from each other) given his children were 17 and 15 when meghan was born I'm not sure how much of a "close" relationship they would have had, especially as they didn't live with her. ....she says herself she viewed herself as an only child.

You'd think she walked out on "The Walton's" or maybe the "Brady Bunch" they way people are saying she's estranged

Username fits the discussion;)

Btw there was no refererence to 'fault' in her first divorce but I Guess most of the rest is all someone else's 'fault' or at least thats the way it was portrayed. Ditto a number of other family members. And regardless of 'fault' seeking out global coverage to air your family squabbles is definitely akin to the "Waltons" or the "Brady Bunch" whichever way you look at it.

But yeah if you really want to be estranged from the old inlaws - go on US talk TV and roast them as racists amongst other things.

That should about do it...

As I said I feel sorry for the kids and not the adults who should know better.

Princess Calla

gozunda wrote: »

Username fits the discussion;)

Btw no refererence to 'fault' in her first divorce but I Guess most of the rest is all someone else's 'fault' or at least thats the way it was portrayed. Ditto a number of other family members.

But yeah if you really want to be estranged from the old inlaws - go on US talk TV and roast them as racists amongst other things.

That should about do it...

As I said I feel sorry for the kids and not the adults who should know better.

Gummi bears was my favourite cartoon as a child.

There's a similar age gap between me and my older siblings...they have a shared history that I don't have.

We have always been in different stages....when I was a teenager they were young parents....now my children are younger than their grandchildren....we've never been on the same page....we've not fallen out but have very little in common bar same parents.

So yeah I do question how close meghan would have been to half siblings, with such an age gap whom she never lived with.... especially when it's the father who is the common link (kids of the same mother are usually closer)

Having said that she has torpedoed her relationship with the in-laws but then there's plenty of people who have a sh1te relationship with their In-laws too.

gozunda

Princess Calla wrote: »

Gummi bears was my favourite cartoon as a child.

There's a similar age gap between me and my older siblings...they have a shared history that I don't have.

We have always been in different stages....when I was a teenager they were young parents....now my children are younger than their grandchildren....we've never been on the same page....we've not fallen out but have very little in common bar same parents.

So yeah I do question how close meghan would have been to half siblings, with such an age gap whom she never lived with.... especially when it's the father who is the common link (kids of the same mother are usually closer)

Having said that she has torpedoed her relationship with the in-laws but then there's plenty of people who have a sh1te relationship with their In-laws too.

Sorry too old to have watched gummi bears

I agree that a lot of people are not close or have fairly rocky relationships with family and / or inlaws but what you don't do - is go on talk TV to broadcast it.

Not sure how if any reconciliations are going to come of that tbh.

Immortal Starlight

I thought during the interview that Meghan was trying to make her story as much alike Diana’s as she could. From the suicidal claims and the papers hounding her to the palace ignoring her. Then Harry said he was afraid history might have repeated itself. Then there’s all the pictures of very similar clothes and poses of Meghan and Diana. It’s like she studied Diana and is copying her. Now maybe I’m wrong and it’s just coincidence. Could be I suppose.

Necro

Mod: Stateofyou and Augeo, take your off topic bickering elsewhere please I've just deleted 17 posts of your back and forth nonsense. Put each other on ignore if you can't post in a civil manner. Everyone else, can we stay on topic and stop discussing other posters please.

Immortal Starlight

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I thought during the interview that Meghan was trying to make her story as much alike Diana’s as she could. From the suicidal claims and the papers hounding her to the palace ignoring her. Then Harry said he was afraid history might have repeated itself. .............

Indeed, it all seems a tad contrived IMO.
I suppose if you go on a TV interview you have to come up with something. The alleged racism was new I suppose but maybe not actually. Iirc there was murmurings that the RF were less than impressed with Diana's main squeeze at the time.

Neyite

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I thought during the interview that Meghan was trying to make her story as much alike Diana’s as she could. From the suicidal claims and the papers hounding her to the palace ignoring her. Then Harry said he was afraid history might have repeated itself. Then there’s all the pictures of very similar clothes and poses of Meghan and Diana. It’s like she studied Diana and is copying her. Now maybe I’m wrong and it’s just coincidence. Could be I suppose.

The thing with Diana is that she got her fair share of criticism, invasive press, leaked stories, and particularly just before she died, there was a lot of veiled criticism about her relationships especially Dodi, because being only 36, she could go on to remarry and give birth to step-siblings of colour and Muslim to boot to the heir to the throne. Had proper social media been as widespread as it is now, there would have been plenty of vitriol aimed at her & Dodi and the majority of it would have been racist.

But when she died, she became a bit of a sacred cow and off limits for criticism of any sort. Things that she was castigated for when she was alive were re-framed as wonderful after her death. So if Meghan didn't do any research there's no way she would have known how hunted Diana was by the press, and wont know that the only way you'll get that kind of fawning in the RF, is to either have decades of perfectly uncontroversial service like the Queen or to die tragically young.

saabsaab

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, it all seems a tad contrived IMO.
I suppose if you go on a TV interview you have to come up with something. The alleged racism was new I suppose but maybe not actually. Iirc there was murmurings that the RF were less than impressed with Diana's main squeeze at the time.

Is it racist to wonder about how one's grandchild might look? Will they have red hair, dark skin be like their mother or father? It' s only natural.

NSAman

Neyite wrote: »

But when she died, she became a bit of a sacred cow and off limits for criticism of any sort. Things that she was castigated for when she was alive were re-framed as wonderful after her death. So if Meghan didn't do any research there's no way she would have known how hunted Diana was by the press, and wont know that the only way you'll get that kind of fawning in the RF, is to either have decades of perfectly uncontroversial service like the Queen or to die tragically young.

Errrr.. disagree strongly.

All she had to do was google news articles, ask a friend or ask someone in England how much press intrusion was in Diana's life.

She was the most photographed woman in the world.

Diana was no saint. I am sure she was a strong woman, but I am also sure she could be difficult. The most obvious thing for me about her was how much she loved those two boys. The other thing was, she was in tune with public opinion most of the time. She grew up in Aristocracy.

You do not air your dirty laundry in public. You certainly never throw shade directly. She talked about "three people in the marriage" which was obvious that Charles' tampon was Camilla. The difficulties she had with the Royal Family were secondary to the problems she had with her then husband. She was also popular with the General Public and played her roll to perfection after YEARS of problems.

My issue with Meghan, is the clear use of her "position" to extort. Not just the Royal Family, but also commercially. That is my issue with her AND Harry.

Stateofyou

saabsaab wrote: »

Is it racist to wonder about how one's grandchild might look? Will they have red hair, dark skin be like their mother or father? It' s only natural.

No, but I think the crux of the matter is that while we don't know what was specifically said, Harry and Meghan said there were "concerns" and questions about his skin colour, and that Harry was shocked at it. At the same time, there was a discussion about changing the old King George Convention law which says that the grandchildren of a monarch become Prince/Princess.

Why was that discussion suddenly happening?

Why were Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis made prince/princess when their grandfather was not yet King?

retro:electro

Stateofyou wrote: »

No, but I think the crux of the matter is that while we don't know what was specifically said, Harry and Meghan said there were "concerns" and questions about his skin colour, and that Harry was shocked at it. At the same time, there was a discussion about changing the old King George Convention law which says that the grandchildren of a monarch become Prince/Princess.

Why was that discussion suddenly happening?

Why were Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis made prince/princess when their grandfather was not yet King?

As far as I’m aware The Queen altered that convention in 2013 when Kate was pregnant with George, long before Harry even met Meghan.

Stateofyou

NSAman wrote: »

You do not air your dirty laundry in public. You certainly never throw shade directly.

My issue with Meghan, is the clear use of her "position" to extort. Not just the Royal Family, but also commercially. That is my issue with her AND Harry.

Can we talk about this one - where did this idea come from, our parent's time when we swept everything under the carpet and did as we were told by our elders and parish priest?

When is it appropriate to speak up then, never? Not in the face of racism, rape, sexual assault, harassment, corruption... never??

What does that message send-protect the people who are perpetuating these harms against others? Why shouldn't anyone speak up on these matters, especially when the people directly involved refuse to acknowledge or deal with these harmful issues impacting one's life?

Stateofyou

retro:electro wrote: »

As far as I’m aware The Queen altered that convention in 2013 when Kate was pregnant with George, long before Harry even met Meghan.

You mean in the way she altered it to make Prince George and any other siblings automatically prince/princess before the earlier convention stated?

So what's the issue with the same treatment for Archie? Harry and Meghan said there was talk about "changing the convention" for Archie. So you're saying, change it again since 2013? He's the child of the only other senior royal family of Prince Charles. I don't think the convention changed, I think Queen Elizabeth issued a special rule for Williams children. Then they talked about changing the actual convention in light of Harry's child. Why...

retro:electro

Stateofyou wrote: »

You mean in the way she altered it to make any George and any other siblings automatically prince/princess before the earlier convention stated?

So what's the issue with the same treatment for Archie? He's the child of the only other senior royal family of Prince Charles.

Great grandchildren are not entitled to titles, but she altered the convention to give those in direct line of succession and their siblings titles. Archie would become Prince once Charles inherited the throne. I’ve no idea why she didn’t alter it so Archie was prince immediately once born, probably because they stated they didn’t want him to have a title and turned down him being referred as The Earl of Dumbarton and instead insisted he be simply Master Archie. It’s only now they’re saying they wanted him to be a prince.

Stateofyou

retro:electro wrote: »

She altered it to give those in direct line of succession and their siblings titles. Archie would become Prince once Charles inherited the throne. I’ve no idea why she didn’t alter it so Archie was prince immediately once born, probably because they stated they didn’t want him to have a title and turned down him being referred as The Earl of Dumbarton and instead insisted he be simply Master Archie. It’s only now they’re saying they wanted him to be a prince.

Well hang on, Meghan said that wasn't true, it wasn't their choice to make. She very clearly said it wasn't their decision that he wasn't titled. And that she didn't care about titles, but only for the reason it meant he would have protection and that's what they took issue with why he wasn't titled.

Did you watch the interview? This was very clear, that they didn't turn it down.

Stateofyou

retro:electro wrote: »

Great grandchildren are not entitled to titles, but she altered the convention to give those in direct line of succession and their siblings titles. Archie would become Prince once Charles inherited the throne. I’ve no idea why she didn’t alter it so Archie was prince immediately once born, probably because they stated they didn’t want him to have a title and turned down him being referred as The Earl of Dumbarton and instead insisted he be simply Master Archie. It’s only now they’re saying they wanted him to be a prince.

Princes George, Louis, and Princess Charlotte are great grandchildren. Why alter for them now, though? Why do you think this was done when there was a convention in place already to come into play when Prince Charles becomes King?

I already said in my previous post, they didn't make the choice to not have Archie titled as clearly stated in the interview.

retro:electro

Stateofyou wrote: »

Well hang on, Meghan said that wasn't true, it wasn't their choice to make. She very clearly said it wasn't their decision that he wasn't titled. And that she didn't care about titles, but only for the reason it meant he would have protection and that's what they took issue with why he wasn't titled.

Did you watch the interview? This was very clear, that they didn't turn it down.

Sure that’s what she’s saying, but she also said he wasn’t given a title due to being mixed race. Which is inflammatory rubbish.
Recollections may vary..

I already explained the George + siblings thing. It was amended in 2013 before anyone even knew Meghan existed. It has nothing to do with her.

cnocbui

NSAman wrote: »

Errrr.. disagree strongly.

All she had to do was google news articles, ask a friend or ask someone in England how much press intrusion was in Diana's life.

She was the most photographed woman in the world.

Diana was no saint. I am sure she was a strong woman, but I am also sure she could be difficult. The most obvious thing for me about her was how much she loved those two boys. The other thing was, she was in tune with public opinion most of the time. She grew up in Aristocracy.

You do not air your dirty laundry in public. You certainly never throw shade directly. She talked about "three people in the marriage" which was obvious that Charles' tampon was Camilla. The difficulties she had with the Royal Family were secondary to the problems she had with her then husband. She was also popular with the General Public and played her roll to perfection after YEARS of problems.

My issue with Meghan, is the clear use of her "position" to extort. Not just the Royal Family, but also commercially. That is my issue with her AND Harry.

Yeah; you bury your dirty laundry and the bodies of the enslaved mothers who washed it - and the bodies of their inconvenient, but thankfully now dead babies - in the ground, with nary a thought or mention. Out of sight and out of mind so dirty consciences can be salved

How commendably victorian of you.

"Extort" 'obtain (something) by force, threats, or other unfair means: he attempted to extort money from the company.'

Try using a dictionary next time; in no way does any action by Meghan or Harry amount to extortion. Quite the contrary, they paid for the Frogmore renovations themselves and took themselves off and became financially independent through perfectly legal and morally acceptable commercial means.