Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

[Osipi]

About that hat, Curryong. If Kay and the Fail know what they're talking about, I'll throw in a pair of gloves and join you in eating that hat.

We could also look at this from another angle. A business one. Harry has recently been stepping up and out and going places on tour representing his monarch and the "Firm". Many places here on TRF I've seen it stated that Harry is quite the up and coming ambassador of good will for the UK. Wherever he goes, people love him and are charmed by him. He resonates with people and to me, that's a prime asset when you're in the diplomatic business.

With such a public role that is destined to increase as the years pass, I think the "Firm" and the government and the courtiers and anyone with eyeballs in their head realize that Harry is not only the Queen's grandson but he's also a golden ticket to reach people. People who have met him around the globe would feel "I know this guy" sitting there watching him marry on TV. Heck, a lot of us would feel that way watching. I get that Harry treasures and holds his privacy close to his vest but I don't think he'd request a strictly private wedding and leave out his "friends" all over the globe.

To make it totally a private occasion goes against the grain of the business Harry is in. You can't expect to be able to reach people in the four corners of the earth and have a reputation for being very likable and charming and then decide to go totally against the grain of your personality and shut everyone out on a day of a senior royal wedding which by tradition in the 20th century always included the public in some ways.

Sorry Richard, ain't going to happen. Quit adding whiskey to your tea. Its messing those tea leaves up badly.

 

[TLLK]

If the Fail knows any details about Harry's wedding I'll eat my hat, and I will be flabbergasted if there is no filming for TV. I will bet good money that there will be.

Adding in a pair of my son's band socks to the hat and gloves, so let's hope that we're right and he's not! I agree that this wedding will be scaled down when compared to William's but that it will be televised.

 

[TLLK]

How Meghan Markle will be the saving grace of the British Royal Family – Royal Central

I like Meghan. I like Harry. I like Harry and Meghan as a couple, but I wish that articles like this one were not written because there has been no official announcement at this point in time. Also IMHO this places too much pressure on the person and the couple's relationship.

 

[wyevale]

articles like this one

I'm sure that if Ms Markle marries Prince Harry she will bring her own 'skill set', into the firm, but to describe her as 'the saving grace' of the BRF is utterly ridiculous.

It implies that this incredibly popular institution is somehow 'on its last legs' !

What with the Prince of Wales' 'Princes Trust', The Cambridges' and Harry's work on Mental Health and Service people, The Duchess of Cornwall on Osteoporosis/Children's reading and abuse of Women the firm are MORE relevant and consequently popular than EVER.

 

[Anfisa]

Somehow I still doubt that they are going to get engaged anytime soon! They’ve only been dating for more than a year, I estimate an engagement will come next summer at the earliest.

 

[csw]

I'm sure that if Ms Markle marries Prince Harry she will bring her own 'skill set', into the firm, but to describe her as 'the saving grace' of the BRF is utterly ridiculous.

I especially cringed at the comment about her being on all the mags "like Diana." That is wishful thinking on the part of the Daily Fail desperately trying to create a phenom they can exploit.

 

[Osipi]

Face it, we're going to be getting a lot of off the wall articles from here on until Harry's kids start university and the focus switches to their lives and foibles and romances (if not before then).

I don't go looking for these articles but no matter where I go for my news feed, something along these lines always seem to crop up. The British royal family is as popular as ever with the general reading public in the US and I cringe at some of the headlines I see. I think also that with a growing interest in Harry's possible engagement and marriage, more and more people are going to be starting to be drawn here to "get the scoop" so to speak. All the more reason we here need to keep things on a factual basis. Even with posting some of the off the wall links such as Richard Kay's about private and no TV, here we have the opportunity to present just where these articles miss their mark and why.

I think it gives us an excellent opportunity to set the facts straight and pass on what we do know. We're in for a wild ride and I'm going to love every minute of it.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Somehow I still doubt that they are going to get engaged anytime soon! They’ve only been dating for more than a year, I estimate an engagement will come next summer at the earliest.

It's been almost a year since KP issued Harry's warning to back off from intrusive behavior and over the line comments/articles-the relationship was already serious then.

 

[Rudolph]

The royal family is in for a heap of trouble if it’s ‘saviour’ is going to be a b-list American actress who will grace the magazine covers like Diana.

It was that kind of celebrity that almost sunk the ship in the 80s and 90s.

A thousand year old institution with a current approval rating pushing 80 percent doesn’t need a saviour but what do I know.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The royal family is in for a heap of trouble if it’s ‘saviour’ is going to be a b-list American actress who will grace the magazine covers like Diana.

It was that kind of celebrity that almost sunk the ship in the 80s and 90s.

A thousand year old institution with a current approval rating pushing 80 percent doesn’t need a saviour but what do I know.

Rudolph, you know that is a fantasy of the segment of the press missing the 80s and early 90s tabloid fever. Neither Meghan or Harry are doing anything to indicate they are encouraging anything like that.

 

[TLLK]

Great post Osipi.

Face it, we're going to be getting a lot of off the wall articles from here on until Harry's kids start university and the focus switches to their lives and foibles and romances (if not before then).

I don't go looking for these articles but no matter where I go for my news feed, something along these lines always seem to crop up. The British royal family is as popular as ever with the general reading public in the US and I cringe at some of the headlines I see. I think also that with a growing interest in Harry's possible engagement and marriage, more and more people are going to be starting to be drawn here to "get the scoop" so to speak. All the more reason we here need to keep things on a factual basis. Even with posting some of the off the wall links such as Richard Kay's about private and no TV, here we have the opportunity to present just where these articles miss their mark and why.

I think it gives us an excellent opportunity to set the facts straight and pass on what we do know. We're in for a wild ride and I'm going to love every minute of it.

I'm believe that the print tabloid press is interested in increasing its sales/clicks so they're looking for a "saving grace."

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

1. Jamie Samhan is one of the most ignorant royal commentators I know about (if we can call her a commentator). She's worse that Richard Kay, Robert Jobson, Ephraim Hardcastle and Sebastian Shakespeare together. She lies about the financing of the monarchy, and says and wrotes some things that is just pure stupid and wrong.

2. As almost everyone else (of the serious commentators) says, the last thing the monarchy needs is a new controversial/divisive Diana.

3. The monarchy, thanks to HM is as popular as ever, and (as Sky News Royal Correspondent Rhiannon Mills said some days ago) the Queen remains the House of Windsor's greatest asset.

4. Most experts/commentators disagrees with Jamie Samhan, and criticises/accuses the young royals for turning the monarchy into a Hollywood show.

5. A long article from Tony Parsons (really worth a read), and before people turn on me, this is his opinion, not mine:

TONY PARSONS Meghan Markle needs to learn from Queen — NEVER complain and NEVER explain
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4430819/meghan-markle-queen-never-complain-never-explain/

I think I've quoted to much, but the article is quite long - some of the things he wrote about Meghan:

And in fairness to Meghan, she seems a huge improvement on the parade of posh blondes that Harry has squired in the past.
A mixed-race child of divorced parents, Meghan Markle seems to be someone from the real world.

She is divorced and, at 36 — a year older than the Duchess of Cambridge, who is pregnant with her third child — knocking on a bit for a royal bride.

Yes, Meghan would bring a touch of glitz to the staid façade of the Windsors.

But the Vanity Fair interview suggests she would also bring something else.

“We must not let daylight in on the magic,” Walter Bagehot said of the British monarchy back in the Victorian age.

Meghan Markle would bring daylight, a team of make-up artists and the celebrity self-promotion of Tinseltown.

Yet it is emotional reticence, a dignified distance, the stoic refusal to let the stiff upper lip slip that has served the Royal Family so well for so long.

About Kate:

And it is not even a generational issue, for the Duchess of Cambridge never yakked about her relationship with Prince William when she was plain Kate Middleton, and even when they got engaged gave just one TV interview.

Kate smiles for the cameras, radiates grace and never puts a foot wrong. But she also keeps her feelings to herself and that attitude has protected her — and also the Royal Family.

And most importantly:

Meghan Markle is an American actress and made of very different stuff from the middle-class, Middle England, buttoned-up Middletons.

“I can tell you that, at the end of the day, I think it’s really simple,” Meghan told Vanity Fair.

“We’re two people who are really happy and in love.”

It looks like true love. But why do we need to be told about it in such forensic detail? To flog another series of Suits?
We all want a happy ending to Prince Harry’s story.

But his grandmother has been on the throne for so long — and has ruled with such grace, dignity and selfless devotion to duty — we have come to believe the monarchy will always be here.

It is simply not true.

We have forgotten that every generation of royals must earn the love and respect of its subjects.

And although Meghan Markle seems like a lovely lass, I am not convinced the Windsors will survive cuddling up to Hollywood.

“Never complain, never explain,” was once the motto of the Royal Family. These days it feels like they never stop complaining and rarely stop explaining.

And it will be the death of them.

And I want to finish by saying (again) that I wish Harry and Meghan all well in the future and I look forward to their wedding.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks, Royal Norway, for once again putting things into a very clear perspective of how things really are rather than illusions and smoke and mirror tricks that the media drums up to put their own slant on how they "perceive" things to be. (Usually through eyeballs with dollar signs on them).

The British Royal Family and the "Firm" is a tried and true institution that has withstood the ups and downs of far worse events in history than one person marrying into the family even though some of those marriages have ended on a sour note. It happens when the players in the "Firm" are also human. The monarchy is a tried and true and time tested recipe for a soup that has become a staple in the menu of British life. Each member is their own ingredient that adds to it. Should Meghan Markle marry into this family, she will be adding her own unique "spice" to the soup that will make it even more palatable. This is how it works.

Now I'm hungry. Go figure.

 

[Alliec76]

Well if one "B list American actress" is enough to sink the whole thing, when war, death, divorces, infidelity and abdication haven't, then maybe it's not such a strong institution after all. One person isn't going to sink the thing, anymore than one person is saving it. People are getting a little over the top. But that's what the media does. They know much of what they say is b.s. But it sells.

So I agree we will see more hyperbolic articles, both accusing Meghan of being the thing to bring down the monarchy and also single handedly saving it. I'm pretty sure the monarchy will be fine. It's the people in it that don't always fare well. I'm more worried about Meghan.

 

[hel]

I honestly will never not be able to stop side-eyeing press who harp on about "never complain, never explain" while simultaneously jumping to exploit every time the BRF does either complain or explain.

They fell all over themselves to exploit C&D's explanations and complaints. They directly benefited from it, the whole press pack. And that continues today; they're still getting column inches out of Harry's statement and W&C's lawsuit against the French photographers. Without the BRF being a bit human, they would have a very, very dull beat. Can you imagine the royal press pack of today trying to write about George V and Mary? They'd be tearing their hair out with frustration at the lack of something to say.

They just don't want them to complain/explain too much, or about the press. Because they know that it's easier to be a bit hyperbolic about people who won't say anything about the hyperbole. The press has used the expression as a stick ever since they went too far in the 80s and got bitten by their own excesses, in order to keep the public's eyes off their own problematic behaviour.

 

[Mirabel]

If the Fail knows any details about Harry's wedding I'll eat my hat, and I will be flabbergasted if there is no filming for TV. I will bet good money that there will be.

Me too!
It's all wild speculation- just like for Pippa's wedding!
Almost everything the press printed turned out to be wrong (yet they still say there was a no ring, no bring policy, even though so many couples there were not engaged).

It is the same with Harry/Meghan; the tabloids will print all sorts of wild theories, and won't care whether or not they are accurate.

 

[Osipi]

The truth of the matter though is that as much as the media exploits, exaggerates, dramaticizes or writes pure fiction, when it comes to Harry and Meghan, its probably something that they totally ignore and don't waste their time on. They both have full, busy lives with their own circle of family and friends around them that they trust and do not waste their time bemoaning what Richard Kay writes or what Sebastian Shakespeare spews out or anyone else for that matter.

We, the public, are the ones interested in these people and their lives and what they do. The media is aiming its zingers at us in the sole hope of generating clicks and gaining subscriptions. We know better. We have come to realize that we are no longer dependent on royal reporters and editors to keep us informed. They're a dying breed.

With this in mind, lets forget about the media as a topic and return to what we're really interested in here. Harry and Meghan and their relationship. Its up to us to not give away our power to this media frenzy that is about to rocket into overdrive. We're royal watchers and not the sheeple to the press.

 

[Alliec76]

Me too!
It's all wild speculation- just like for Pippa's wedding!
Almost everything the press printed turned out to be wrong (yet they still say there was a no ring, no bring policy, even though so many couples there were not engaged).

It is the same with Harry/Meghan; the tabloids will print all sorts of wild theories, and won't care whether or not they are accurate.

And when any details are finally released and confirmed, they'll claim that they predicted it all! "We knew it all along! Just like we told you!" LOL!

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Thanks, Royal Norway, for once again putting things into a very clear perspective of how things really are rather than illusions and smoke and mirror tricks that the media drums up to put their own slant on how they "perceive" things to be.

Thanks, Osipi!

So I agree we will see more hyperbolic articles, both accusing Meghan of being the thing to bring down the monarchy and also single handedly saving it. I'm pretty sure the monarchy will be fine. It's the people in it that don't always fare well. I'm more worried about Meghan.

Yes, the monarchy will be fine. Charles and William will (I think) do a good job with the support of Camilla and Kate in their continuation of the Queen's legacy.

Harry and Meghan will also do a good job in suporting Charles and William, without too much glamour and interviews (I hope), becauce that will hurt the institution more than helping it.

And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual.

 

[jacqui24]

How in the world did we come back to this topic of Meghan bringing down the monarchy while I was sleeping? Or that she'd be single-handedly saving it? The commentators should switch out their caffeinated tea for some chamomile. This overly dramatic reaction to two people being in love is simply too over the top.

Bottom line is Meghan and Harry aren't children, they know that if they get married, they both will have a duty to the monarchy. To an extent, because Harry is the spare, they will be given more freedom than Will and Kate are. They are both the fun type, so that'll probably shine through in their public persona whereas Will and Kate will have to keep a much serious public persona. Frankly, the monarch need both types. One to keep the stiff upper lip, the other to keep it somewhat fun and lighthearted. I'm sure there will be comparisons about how Meghan will not be as prim and perfectly polished as Kate. I'm sure there will be plenty of comparisons in the future and each person will have their own favorite and thinks somehow that's better than the other. However, truly that's why it'll work. They can't switch and they can't all be the same. They both serve a purpose.

 

[AlowVera]

Well if one "B list American actress" is enough to sink the whole thing, when war, death, divorces, infidelity and abdication haven't, then maybe it's not such a strong institution after all. One person isn't going to sink the thing, anymore than one person is saving it. People are getting a little over the top. But that's what the media does. They know much of what they say is b.s. But it sells.

So I agree we will see more hyperbolic articles, both accusing Meghan of being the thing to bring down the monarchy and also single handedly saving it. I'm pretty sure the monarchy will be fine. It's the people in it that don't always fare well. I'm more worried about Meghan.

Meghan when compared to other girlfriends is hardly in the press, and made up clickbait articles do not count. We rarely see her walking down the street or going to events or stumbling out of nightclubs like we saw Kate do on a regular basis pre-marriage. Meghan has successfully ghosted the British press. How is she strong enough to take the British monarchy when she is rarely visible.

Interviews, social media are all part of her job. The point is Meghan and Kate are both human. If she was as social as the other girlfriends I shudder to think how the press would demean her.

 

[Rudolph]

Well if she was stumbling out of nightclubs at 36 we’d have an even bigger issue I suppose.

Partying during your university years is a bit different I think. Plus for someone who’s been with Harry for only about a year and half, I would say absolutely we’ve seen more of her than any previous royal girlfriend.

Meghan’s been papped many times in Toronto, she’s given interviews, various social media accounts (spooning bananas) etc.

I can’t think of another royal girlfriend that’s been more out there.

 

[Osipi]

Well if she was stumbling out of nightclubs at 36 we’d have an even bigger issue I suppose.

Partying during your university years is a bit different I think. Plus for someone who’s been with Harry for only about a year and half, I would say absolutely we’ve seen more of her than any previous royal girlfriend.

Meghan’s been papped many times in Toronto, she’s given interviews, various social media accounts (spooning bananas) etc.

I can’t think of another royal girlfriend that’s been more out there.

This is true. Meghan has been more "out there" than any previous girlfriend that Harry has had. She's also the first girlfriend that had a full and varied life in the public eye before setting her peepers on Harry.

Its just a case of that Meghan Markle is the first girlfriend that actually has a public identity of her own and being Harry's girlfriend was an added feature rather than defining who her identity is. It makes all the difference in the world IMO.

 

[jacqui24]

Well if she was stumbling out of nightclubs at 36 we’d have an even bigger issue I suppose.

Partying during your university years is a bit different I think. Plus for someone who’s been with Harry for only about a year and half, I would say absolutely we’ve seen more of her than any previous royal girlfriend.

Meghan’s been papped many times in Toronto, she’s given interviews, various social media accounts (spooning bananas) etc.

I can’t think of another royal girlfriend that’s been more out there.

She's given ONE interview. She also had a much higher media exposure prior to her relationship because of her job. Her social media presence prior to Harry has always followed the rule that while she shares some part of her life, her relationships were always off limits. That was the case when she was married, and when she was with Cory. Most people didn't know they were together until after they broke up. She's taken the same approach to her relationship with Harry prior to disappearing from social media all together.

One can't blame her for trying to keep some resemblance of her life prior to this storm that came about after last October. People should remember that this woman had a life and job prior to Harry. Just because she is dating him, it's unfair to expect her to give up everything she's worked for. She has made so many compromises, some would argue to her own detriment, for this relationship in terms of promotion related to her work. Some of the more reliable royal correspondence has noted in their pieces about the interview that there was an understanding at the Palace that this whole not speaking to media at all is not sustainable in her career as an actress. And clearly, they understood as the couple seems to be going stronger without any obvious sign of disapproval from palace staff or other royals. If you look at her co-stars, they've been doing multiple interviews before season 7 begin to promote the show and actively tweeting on social media about it. That's what you are expected to do as an actor on a show.

The argument for her shying away from media is much stronger as she's actually had to pull back her activities based a a legitimate work related purpose in front of it to almost non-existent whereas the other girlfriends never had much of one to begin with. It's also true that she's basically disappeared from the society social scene, which some past royal girlfriends remained part of.

It is interesting how the argument of context is made here for stumbling out of a night club, but not for the one interview she did and her social media while using those against her.

 

[Rudolph]

before setting her peepers on Harry.

.

The person I responded to compared Meghan to Kate pre-marriage

As that article in the Sun points out, we’ve heard more from Meghan about her relationship with Harry than we did from Kate in 8 years of dating William and I’m sure she was given many offers to do so.

 

[Osipi]

I think we're best off not comparing Meghan to anyone else because, frankly, each person is totally different and their lives are like galaxies in a universe that are far, far away from each other.

 

[BlytheAnne]

Doing press is a contractual obligation and part of Meghan's job. It seems she was able to negotiate with her bosses to allow her to do one big interview instead of dozens of others, and it seems Harry and Meghan were able to use that interview as part of the roll out of their relationship. Two birds with one stone as many have said.

Just like we saw Kate have nights out partying because she was a young college student at the time, we have seen Meghan have a public voice and a public presence because she is a public figure in her own right apart from Harry and just as capable of speaking about their relationship, in a way and manner upon which they both agree, as he is.

If Kate had been in a similar circumstance perhaps she would have had a more direct role in the roll out of her and Wills relationship.

Two woman in completely different circumstances.

 

[Abbigail]

I'm sorry, is that Tony Parsons article supposed to be any less ridiculous than any others from the tabloids?

The person I responded to compared Meghan to Kate pre-marriage

As that article in the Sun points out, we’ve heard more from Meghan about her relationship with Harry than we did from Kate in 8 years of dating William and I’m sure she was given many offers to do so.

Is this intended to be a criticism of Meghan? Because I'd say it highlights how ridiculous it is to expect a woman to remain absolutely silent about an aspect of her life that affects every other aspect of her life. You'd think Meghan was giving multiple interviews, instead of one where she offers only a few lines about Harry, whom she never actually names. How scandalous of her!

 

[Rudolph]

What’s all this ‘roll out of there relationship’ stuff people refer to. No other royal relationship I know of has had a ‘roll out’.

You date, get engaged and give an interview. That’s the extent off it.

Meghan’s fans defended her about speaking to VF about her relationship with Harry as part of a palace approved interview when there was zero evidence it was approved by anyone other than Meghan and maybe Harry.

 

[Abbigail]

What’s all this ‘roll out of there relationship’ stuff people refer to. No other royal relationship I know of has had a ‘roll out’.

You date, get engaged and give an interview. That’s the extent off it.

Meghan’s fans defended her about speaking to VF about her relationship with Harry as part of a palace approved interview when there was zero evidence it was approved by anyone other than Meghan and maybe Harry.

I didn't need it to be "approved" or part of a roll out but it's highly unlikely that Meghan and Harry went rogue and decided she was going to do this without at least KP knowing about it.