The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1581  
Old 03-21-2021, 09:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post

They wanted the titles, best jobs and perks, also wanted the "privacy" to so what they wanted or to come and go AND wanted a global platform for progressive causes. None of that seems very compatible with each other.

At the point where we are now it saddens me to think that we don't know if the ruptures Meghan brought to live behind palace doors didn't influence the willingness of the papers to be so angry and hateful towards her.


I think she didn't understand that the monarchy and the firm are publicily controlled institutions. EG renovations of palaces: the public pays for most of the work and the state appartments and grand rooms are kept in perfect order. But they don't pay for the private luxuries and so the Royals have to look at the cost of living in a palace. And that means they need to be patient with everything that happens.I actually was astonished that Frogmore Cottage came up and was accepted so early on in their marriage. I can pretty much hear Meghan's successful American friends talking about living in NottCott!



Meghan wanted to live in a palace, have enough money for dresses etc., didn't understand that she can't take the things offered to her for free - and I can understand that from an American POV. Harry knew that, but IMHO he is besotted with her and didn't want to loose her once she realised it is a different life than she expected. He may have hoped she could stick it out till the times got better, but in the end couldn't imagine his family cutting him off, so he followed her to California. I doubt that is the life he always wanted. And Meghan for sure sees Oprah and Gayle King and their life and wants that. Should have married that Bezos-guy instead!
__________________

  #1582  
Old 03-21-2021, 09:58 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 705
In a move that surprises actually no one, The Sun obtained Harry and Meghan's wedding certificate, which clearly states that they were married on 19th of May in St. George's Chapel in Windsor.

My personal favourite: "The official who drew up the licence for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding says Meghan is “obviously confused” over the marriage."

And I agree with the ending of the article. Unfortunately - and I have all the sympathy in the world for him now - Archbishop should comment on this and explain the situation. I even will go a step further, if he doesn't do that, then he should resign from his position.

__________________

  #1583  
Old 03-21-2021, 10:19 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
In a move that surprises actually no one, The Sun obtained Harry and Meghan's wedding certificate, which clearly states that they were married on 19th of May in St. George's Chapel in Windsor.

My personal favourite: "The official who drew up the licence for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding says Meghan is “obviously confused” over the marriage."

And I agree with the ending of the article. Unfortunately - and I have all the sympathy in the world for him now - Archbishop should comment on this and explain the situation. I even will go a step further, if he doesn't do that, then he should resign from his position.

I think if the Archbishop comments, then the rest of the family has to comment on the title, security, finances, etc. Non-ending story. Next month, Harry and Meghan would come up with other lies, then the family has to comment again?
  #1584  
Old 03-21-2021, 10:19 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,019
It's not very fair to drag the Archbishop in over something two patently unreliable people said, is it? If he comments on this, then he has to comment on other private, pastoral matters. Why isn't anybody pinning down Harry and Meghan about this, or any of the other inconsistent things they said?

The flipside of this is, while I don't approve or condone of what the two of them have been or are currently doing, we don't know what's in their heads. We don't know what they really want, despite their chat with Oprah, because they weren't dumb enough to say "we want free stuff, wherever we get it". So while they're currently living in a lavish home talking about "basics", we don't know that Meghan wanted a palace and an endless wardrobe from the beginning (almost her entire look as a working royal was pretty subdued).

We just don't know, because frankly, they're too confusing.
  #1585  
Old 03-21-2021, 10:30 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
It's not very fair to drag the Archbishop in over something two patently unreliable people said, is it? If he comments on this, then he has to comment on other private, pastoral matters. Why isn't anybody pinning down Harry and Meghan about this, or any of the other inconsistent things they said?

The flipside of this is, while I don't approve or condone of what the two of them have been or are currently doing, we don't know what's in their heads. We don't know what they really want, despite their chat with Oprah, because they weren't dumb enough to say "we want free stuff, wherever we get it". So while they're currently living in a lavish home talking about "basics", we don't know that Meghan wanted a palace and an endless wardrobe from the beginning (almost her entire look as a working royal was pretty subdued).

We just don't know, because frankly, they're too confusing.
What do you mean that her look was subdued, I thought she spent half a million pounds a year on her clothes?
  #1586  
Old 03-21-2021, 10:39 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
I think if the Archbishop comments, then the rest of the family has to comment on the title, security, finances, etc. Non-ending story. Next month, Harry and Meghan would come up with other lies, then the family has to comment again?
The difference I see here that with BRF, half of that is private security matters, the title issue is pretty damn simple - Archie was never meant to be a prince and should not be a prince under current rules - Charles can do with his private money whatever he wants, and the security falls under Met Police and Scotland Yard, not royal family.

Archbishop of Canterbury though is the principal leader of the Church of England, so basically the second most important person - after the Queen. If he ignored the CoE rules for Harry and Meghan by performing a fake wedding ceremony on May 19th or misled them by claiming their whatever-it-was in the garden as a valid wedding ceremony, he should not be a head of the Church of England, I don't care if they are royal or not, there is only one set of rules for everyone.

Many of my friends or family members were made to choose if they want to marry this year and not have all of the people they wanted present or postpone the wedding until lord-knows-when. And now Meghan can claim that she and Harry had two wedding ceremonies. It's something that should absolutely be addressed, because it puts the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury in a terrible light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
It's not very fair to drag the Archbishop in over something two patently unreliable people said, is it? If he comments on this, then he has to comment on other private, pastoral matters. Why isn't anybody pinning down Harry and Meghan about this, or any of the other inconsistent things they said?.
We have 70-something pages pinning all of the inconsistent claims of Meghan and Harry on themselves. And they - well, Meghan - dragged him there already. If the Sussexes had an ounce of the compassion they claim is so important, they would never, ever, put a good man (as I believe Justin Welby is) in that position or would clarify the information as soon as possible.
  #1587  
Old 03-21-2021, 10:53 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
We have 70-something pages pinning all of the inconsistent claims of Meghan and Harry on themselves. And they - well, Meghan - dragged him there already. If the Sussexes had an ounce of the compassion they claim is so important, they would never, ever, put a good man (as I believe Justin Welby is) in that position or would clarify the information as soon as possible.
Sure, we have, but what difference does that make? I meant if the Archbishop is going to have to speak publicly about this to clarify, why not Meghan and Harry as well? Or just Meghan and Harry. Why don't they show their "vows" or "certificate" or whatever? Make something clearer for a change, instead of more confusing.
  #1588  
Old 03-21-2021, 10:57 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Sure, we have, but what difference does that make? I meant if the Archbishop is going to have to speak publicly about this to clarify, why not Meghan and Harry as well? Or just Meghan and Harry. Why don't they show their "vows" or "certificate" or whatever? Make something clearer for a change, instead of more confusing.
Oh, I fully agree, they definitely should. But we also know that they won't.
  #1589  
Old 03-21-2021, 11:05 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Meghan wanted to live in a palace, have enough money for dresses etc., didn't understand that she can't take the things offered to her for free - and I can understand that from an American POV. Harry knew that, but IMHO he is besotted with her and didn't want to loose her once she realised it is a different life than she expected.
Actually, I don't understand why it was such a difficult concept for her to grasp. Plenty of American businesses have limitations on what their employees can accept as free gifts for just doing their job, ie kickbacks. I work in home lending (have worked for several major banking corporations) and we have strict limits on how much we can accept or give as gifts for doing our part in facilitating a loan through the process. I am quite sure that many other industries have similar limits on kickbacks. Granted, Meghan was not in one of those industries, but surely she knows plenty of people from before she met Harry who have jobs in industries or government where kickbacks aren't allowed. I don't really have any sympathy for her being upset that she can't accept free clothing and accessories, trips, etc, just because she is a working royal.
  #1590  
Old 03-21-2021, 11:05 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
Oh, I fully agree, they definitely should. But we also know that they won't.
You'd also wonder if the person/people who instructed, baptized, and received Meghan into the CofE (assuming that wasn't also Welby) aren't going to come in for a bit of side-eyeing somewhere considering how hard and publicly the woman failed the church laws of marriage.
  #1591  
Old 03-21-2021, 11:20 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
We have 70-something pages pinning all of the inconsistent claims of Meghan and Harry on themselves. And they - well, Meghan - dragged him there already. If the Sussexes had an ounce of the compassion they claim is so important, they would never, ever, put a good man (as I believe Justin Welby is) in that position or would clarify the information as soon as possible.
I fully and completely agree with you. However, I also really believe this is just another instance of Meghan not understanding, not realizing, and not even really caring that by throwing out what she considers a little personal tidbit to make them look personable and oh so down to earth, she totally threw the AoC under the bus. I honestly think she believed she was just “giving the people the personal tidbit they wanted” and probably didn’t even realize just how bad this made the AoC look or how much it called him and his position into question.
  #1592  
Old 03-21-2021, 11:24 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 286
Quote:
The difference I see here that with BRF, half of that is private security matters, the title issue is pretty damn simple - Archie was never meant to be a prince and should not be a prince under current rules - Charles can do with his private money whatever he wants, and the security falls under Met Police and Scotland Yard, not royal family.

Archbishop of Canterbury though is the principal leader of the Church of England, so basically the second most important person - after the Queen. If he ignored the CoE rules for Harry and Meghan by performing a fake wedding ceremony on May 19th or misled them by claiming their whatever-it-was in the garden as a valid wedding ceremony, he should not be a head of the Church of England, I don't care if they are royal or not, there is only one set of rules for everyone.

Many of my friends or family members were made to choose if they want to marry this year and not have all of the people they wanted present or postpone the wedding until lord-knows-when. And now Meghan can claim that she and Harry had two wedding ceremonies. It's something that should absolutely be addressed, because it puts the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury in a terrible light.
Yes, you are right, now that I think about it. Why do think the Archbishop refusing to comment, I am now suspicious of the baptism as well, how long does it take to be converted into COE?
  #1593  
Old 03-21-2021, 11:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Witter Springs, United States
Posts: 282
Meghan is home in LA, USA where she was born. What about when their kids get older and it has to be explained to them Dad's family is racial and their parents moved because Mom wa suicial. It all comes around.
  #1594  
Old 03-22-2021, 01:54 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
I fully and completely agree with you. However, I also really believe this is just another instance of Meghan not understanding, not realizing, and not even really caring that by throwing out what she considers a little personal tidbit to make them look personable and oh so down to earth, she totally threw the AoC under the bus. I honestly think she believed she was just “giving the people the personal tidbit they wanted” and probably didn’t even realize just how bad this made the AoC look or how much it called him and his position into question.
Yeah, there was no need whatsoever for her to have revealed that little piece of information.

I have always believed that what happened was that gathering in the garden arose out of some legitimate meeting concerning their forthcoming scheduled church wedding - perhaps a rehearsal - and M&H ended up reciting their personal vows to each other in his presence, and that he probably followed it with a blessing. I can understand them considering, in their hearts, that moment to be their real marriage. But, if that is the case, considering how these two pretend to be so jealous of their privacy, why the hell did they blurt it out to the world on Oprah's show? Bewildering!
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1595  
Old 03-22-2021, 02:06 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,286
Maybe it's just me but I got the feeling that with making the statement about their "wedding" three days before the "spectacle for the world", it almost sounded like telling the world that what they witnessed didn't matter. It was all a dog and pony show because they were already married. Dunno. It was just weird to me.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1596  
Old 03-22-2021, 02:53 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Yeah, there was no need whatsoever for her to have revealed that little piece of information.

I have always believed that what happened was that gathering in the garden arose out of some legitimate meeting concerning their forthcoming scheduled church wedding - perhaps a rehearsal - and M&H ended up reciting their personal vows to each other in his presence, and that he probably followed it with a blessing. I can understand them considering, in their hearts, that moment to be their real marriage. But, if that is the case, considering how these two pretend to be so jealous of their privacy, why the hell did they blurt it out to the world on Oprah's show? Bewildering!
Meghan spoke about that moment, and I believe it was the moment she believed they were truly married in their hearts.

However, Harry didn’t ‘blurt out’ anything about the blessing in the garden. He also wasn’t there when Meghan talked about Archie and the skin colour conversation(s) with Harry during her pregnancy, though I do happen to believe that there were remarks about the coming baby from a member of the family, and a certain former senior royal might well be the one.

It seems to me that far too often here things that Meghan confided to Oprah are imputed to Harry as if he also said them.

Harry came in towards the end of the interview, imparted what the relationship was like with his family (father and brother) the financial cut off and the Netflix/Spotify ‘streaming’ solutions, the system at the Palace when he wasn’t allowed to see his grandmother for urgent talks, stated that he had a conversation with a member of his family about the possible skin colour of future children which took him aback, and that was about it for anything earth shattering.
  #1597  
Old 03-22-2021, 03:06 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Maybe it's just me but I got the feeling that with making the statement about their "wedding" three days before the "spectacle for the world", it almost sounded like telling the world that what they witnessed didn't matter. It was all a dog and pony show because they were already married. Dunno. It was just weird to me.
That did occur to me but I dismissed the idea it on the basis that I do not believe that Meghan is stupid, and she's the one who said it. To tell the world, and particularly the British taxpayer and the British Royal Family and the established church, that the enormously time-consuming and expensive spectacle that they had spent a huge amount of money on/worked hard to prepare for/looked forward to watching for days/spent all day or night watching/bought new clothes to wear to/bought presents for/attended/etc. was of little or no consequence to them because what they did in private in the garden a few nights beforehand was more important to them personally, would be an absolutely crazy thing to do and could burn bridges that could never be repaired. Could it be that she is really so PO'd with Britain and the BRF that she would do that? Maybe she is, in which case I can understand the BRF being PO'd with her and never wanting to see her or speak to her again.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1598  
Old 03-22-2021, 03:37 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,510
I do not understand why this information was shared at all - when I watched the talk show it seemed she was answering a question from Oprah. It seems to be part of a conversation that the rest has been edited out. So it is rather disjointed and not attached to anyone.
Personally I thought there might be someone in it - but I was told that this group it is illegal. So why mention it - I think Meghan likes the idea of pulling the wool of the press and the palaces eyes - she likes thinking that she is the smarter person in the room. She likes these little intrigues. Why share a private moment with Oprah, especially the words used - "No one else knows that" Did Oprah ask for other secrets? what was the original discussions?
Meghan believes she is a smart woman - that aside -between her and her advisors she is not as smart as she believes.
  #1599  
Old 03-22-2021, 03:45 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Meghan spoke about that moment, and I believe it was the moment she believed they were truly married in their hearts.

However, Harry didn’t ‘blurt out’ anything about the blessing in the garden. He also wasn’t there when Meghan talked about Archie and the skin colour conversation(s) with Harry during her pregnancy, though I do happen to believe that there were remarks about the coming baby from a member of the family, and a certain former senior royal might well be the one.

It seems to me that far too often here things that Meghan confided to Oprah are imputed to Harry as if he also said them.

Harry came in towards the end of the interview, imparted what the relationship was like with his family (father and brother) the financial cut off and the Netflix/Spotify ‘streaming’ solutions, the system at the Palace when he wasn’t allowed to see his grandmother for urgent talks, stated that he had a conversation with a member of his family about the possible skin colour of future children which took him aback, and that was about it for anything earth shattering.
These are very fair points Curryong, the only thing I would add is that Oprah made a comment that Harry had been watching the first part of the interview.

The comment re the marriage , for me, put a question mark over the whole interview, it was 'their truth.' Their version of events, an element of truth then embroidered to suit their narrative.
The AOC met them, and for whatever reason, they or him possibly suggested a small private moment/blessing. Lovely.

If Meghan had presented it like that , no problem, but no she said they phoned him up , and they were married in the garden just the 3 of them and nobody else knew. So that was her version of events that could not be true, so firstly that puts in question anything else she said, also puts in to doubt how much she respected her vows in the church that day. So what was the point of the baptism etc.
Secondly they put in the website that they were going to be financially independent, so why the shock that Charles removed finances, also Harry knows the public pay for security so why should the British taxpayer cover the expenses for security for them to live an independent financial life.
British royal protection officers cannot turn up in the USA carrying guns.

Once again it is 'their truth' , the opinion in the UK generally is that the financial independence they meant was no sovereign grant which was 5% of the income, they still intended that Charles should pay them.

The more I think about it the more I think that Oprah and Gayle have set the couple up, once or twice there were the false gasps from Oprah other times it was ' really'. She did not question anything took everything as their truth , even the marriage she did not question. Why not say was that legal, giving them the opportunity to clarify marriage /blessing.
  #1600  
Old 03-22-2021, 04:38 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Actually, I don't understand why it was such a difficult concept for her to grasp. Plenty of American businesses have limitations on what their employees can accept as free gifts for just doing their job, ie kickbacks. I work in home lending (have worked for several major banking corporations) and we have strict limits on how much we can accept or give as gifts for doing our part in facilitating a loan through the process. I am quite sure that many other industries have similar limits on kickbacks. Granted, Meghan was not in one of those industries, but surely she knows plenty of people from before she met Harry who have jobs in industries or government where kickbacks aren't allowed. I don't really have any sympathy for her being upset that she can't accept free clothing and accessories, trips, etc, just because she is a working royal.
I also work in finance, and we aren't allowed to accept expensive gifts because they could be construed as bribes. A box of chocolates or a bottle of wine at Christmas is fine. Expensive jewellery or a designer dress - not that anyone's ever offered me either! - would certainly not be. It's the same in a lot of jobs. I realise that people in showbusiness are given clothes and jewellery to wear at Oscar ceremonies etc, but surely it's not hard to understand that that's not how it works for Royalty.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 08:05 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes america baby names background story biography britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla parker bowles canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family life family tree fashion and style george vi hello! hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima resusci anne royal ancestry royal court royal jewels russian court dress solomon j solomon speech stuart suthida taiwan thailand uae customs united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×