The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #661  
Old 04-15-2021, 09:52 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 905
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle like most stories with no witnesses. It could be both of them cried after that but was originally played as "Meghan made Kate cry" for drama and gossip by the tabloids.

I imagine Meghan thought Catherine would be more supportive or understanding at that moment as she pretty much the only other person who knows what it likes to marry in The Royal Family and the stress of planning a wedding that is watched by millions. Catherine had just given birth and Meghan was planning a Royal wedding. No doubt both were very stressed out for different reasons and all came to a head.

Catherine obviously knew they had to follow protocol and knew there were strict rules which may be what she trying to explain.

Meghan did not grow up in the U.K and with a royal family.
__________________

  #662  
Old 04-15-2021, 09:53 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Whatever the argument, whomever the offended or the offender, I am most astounded that anyone would state - to millions of people in a television interview - anything that would show negative light on any member of their family.
That might seem one sided but it just observes the action taken by Harry and Meghan.
That is the worst breach of trust and now forever a hurdle in the future relationship between formerly very close family members.

Who jeopardizes the family of one's children? Only people who see family as worthless.
__________________

  #663  
Old 04-15-2021, 09:58 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
Whatever the argument, whomever the offended or the offender, I am most astounded that anyone would state - to millions of people in a television interview - anything that would show negative light on any member of their family.
That might seem one sided but it just observes the action taken by Harry and Meghan.
That is the worst breach of trust and now forever a hurdle in the future relationship between formerly very close family members.

Who jeopardizes the family of one's children? Only people who see family as worthless.
Agree especially as the Royal Family never replies ott these stories or anything that is written about them. Very rarely do they ever. It especially put The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in a tough place who no doubt wanted to spend but probably couldn't. Harry and Meghan knew they wouldn't be able to respond
  #664  
Old 04-15-2021, 09:58 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 3,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
Why couldn’t it be exactly that?
Why? ...If it was "just" a matter of notifying Meghan of the protocol, Meghan could then have said "thank you for notifying me but I'm still gonna go with no tights". And then there wouldn't have been an issue. As I see it, it's simply a non-issue unless they both maintain two different things.
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

  #665  
Old 04-15-2021, 10:03 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
IMO, the half in and half out was what everyone assumes it was— want my cake and eat it too. It was using their status as senior royals to make $$$. As everyone knows celebrity is fleeting but being a senior member of the RF is for life. Maybe this was from a desire to make enough money so that Harry wouldn’t have to lower himself (eventually) to being funded by King William.

I seriously believe the interview was a result of frustration and desperation. With them getting no/limited monies from the RF, they needed to pay their bills. While the contracts they’ve landed are lucrative, they need to do significant hard work to see that money. In the meantime, not only do they have their own bills to pay but they have to shell out monies to produce the content needed to make money from their deals. COVID-19 put a damper on the easier money making gigs: speeches and other paid appearances. So, with money going out like crazy and potentially not enough coming in.....

With their half in-half out idea they’d assumed that the RF would fund their international jet setting lifestyle and any money they made would fully be an addition to their bank balance. Now with an expensive lifestyle to fund, this “addition” is significantly reduced, plus with no Royal duties they have to work hard to keep their name in the press— which they need to attract more money making opportunities.
I suspect the half-in/half-out proposal was actually based on Harry's reluctance to completely give up his duties. Harry has worked hard over the years and is very committed to his charities and his military appointments. I think if they had been allowed to go part-time, Harry would have been able to do things like lay wreaths and work for veterans. Meghan would have joined him when she wanted to do so and occasionally have done some solo engagements. But they would have been out of the day-to-day restrictions of the palace and it would have been easier to control their media narrative.

The half-in/half-out also would have given them a better argument for taxpayer funded security. I have no idea how much the cost is but I've read estimates that security and maintenance for that large mansion may be as much as $5 million per year. If that is true, they will need constant stream of revenue to keep up their lifestyle. I think most of the other people in that area are billionaires, so it will be hard to keep up with the Joneses.
  #666  
Old 04-15-2021, 10:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
If the story is true, I somehow doubt it was "just" a case of Kate notifying Meghan of the protocol in place In that case, it simply wouldn't have been "a story" at all.


It wouldn’t overly stun me if it didn’t take much at all for Meghan to decide she wasn’t being supported and get upset. I think it could have been just that simple. Catherine said- this isn’t how it’s done...and Meghan gets upset. Catherine didn’t just smile and nod with what she’d just said. In her defense- I am able to say that phrase and Meghan in the same sentence- weddings are stressful period, hers had the additional daddy drama and the pressure of a world wide audience.
  #667  
Old 04-15-2021, 10:09 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
It's a matter of perception indeed. Given how I get bruises and blood unless my sandals are very open, no heels and front at all, you can be sure that had it been my daughter, she would have worn tights with these shoes, protocol or not. Am I the only person who never wears this type of shoes without something separating the skin? I wouldn't have been supportive at all if the bride had gone on about the day being warm and all, just because she doesn't get blisters and doesn't have any idea how unpleasant it is.
I would like to think that shoes for a royal wedding would be made so comfortable that there would not be any risk of blisters or any other such damage. They might even be lined with soft, absorbent, spongy material. Otherwise it would, IMO, be cruel to insist the children did not wear tights or socks with their shoes on a hot day. I have never been able to stand wearing closed shoes without stockings on a hot day because I get blisters from the rubbing, made worse because my feet sweat in the heat and the shoes stick to my feet. Very uncomfortable! I would like to think someone would have explained that wearing tights is for the children's comfort, not just protocol. If Meghan was unreasonable about it, Kate could have withdrawn Charlotte from the wedding party; that would have gotten attention! But, of course, we don't know what the dispute was really about.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #668  
Old 04-15-2021, 10:16 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 367
The “no one helped me or told me how things work” is utter BS. Samantha Cohen, The Queen’s former assistant private secretary was assigned to Meghan for protocol lessons. Ms. Cohen had been with the RF for 17ish years and was someone who knew how things work. That claim of Meghan’s alone causes me to doubt the truth of other things she says. Gosh, folks, she really blew it! I had such high hopes when she came on the scene: articulate, independent,a breath of fresh air. It is so very sad that it ended up in such a hot mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
IMO it was Meghan’s wedding and it was her decision as to whether her little bridesmaids wore tights or not on a very hot day, not the duty of the mother of one of those bridesmaids to tell her what was supposedly protocol or not. Comfort in the heat should surely come before whatever has been done at some traditional weddings for sixty odd years. The little girls looked fine.

Having said that, I have read that the crying of one or the other was because Charlotte’s dress didn’t fit properly. If that was true then the obligation is on the dressmaker who made the outfit to make sure it fits by ensuring there are previous fittings before the wedding. That sort of thing is not the bride’s responsibility.
I respectfully disagree about the tights. While I personally don’t really care about tights one way or the other, the whole point is this is an example of Meghan not following protocol and doing things “by the book” in this very strict institution that believes in going “by the book.” I believe that unfortunately, Meghan balked at a lot of these kinds of things which is “just not done.” I think she thought she could do things her way (she was the bride, after all) but that’s not how the game is played. I fully believe that she could have been that breath of fresh air and maybe helped modernize some things, but the new kid on the block doesn’t call the shots, has to be patient, and EARN this privilege in due time. IMO she either didn’t understand that or didn’t have the patience for it.
  #669  
Old 04-15-2021, 10:46 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
I respectfully disagree about the tights. While I personally don’t really care about tights one way or the other, the whole point is this is an example of Meghan not following protocol and doing things “by the book” in this very strict institution that believes in going “by the book.” I believe that unfortunately, Meghan balked at a lot of these kinds of things which is “just not done.” I think she thought she could do things her way (she was the bride, after all) but that’s not how the game is played. I fully believe that she could have been that breath of fresh air and maybe helped modernize some things, but the new kid on the block doesn’t call the shots, has to be patient, and EARN this privilege in due time. IMO she either didn’t understand that or didn’t have the patience for it.
I have to admit I have always rather admired Meghan's independent streak and her tendency to rebel against this sort of protocol. When protocol seems ridiculous and only being observed because it has always been done that way, I have been known to question and ignore it, too. And wearing or not wearing stockings or hats or gloves or nail-polish definitely fall into the category of things I would be inclined to rebel against, especially on my own wedding day. I also think that if it really was important for the children to wear tights for some sort of "protocol" reason, then I think someone other than the mother of one of those children should have been the one to explain the reasons to Meghan and made it clear this is something she would have to go along with, if indeed that was the case.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #670  
Old 04-16-2021, 12:19 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
can you believe someone saying something like that on television? Complaining about your sister in law or anyone in the run up to your wedding? I never really paid attention to that story when it came because it just seemed like tabloid fodder. But to talk about it years later on tv? She must have an enemies list to rival Richard Nixon’s.
Yes. The events surrounding the bridesmaids’ dresses happened years before the Oprah interview. The bone of contention is over which woman was provoked to tears over an item of children’s clothing. This is the sort of nonsense that happens in the stressful run up to big family events like weddings, usually followed quickly by embarrassment on the part of the adults who were transiently worked up by such silliness, and then forgotten, (or even laughed about).

A reasonable person does not carry this around for years afterward. Oh, the media got it wrong and said Meghan made Kate cry and not the other way around? Who cares? Buckingham Palace decided not to wade into the murky waters of a disagreement over a preschooler’s tights, (or lack thereof)? Can’t say that I blame them.

And just like Meghan experienced hell on earth while Kate apparently only got “rudeness” from the press, the many unsubstantiated, unflattering/catty stories that have been printed about Kate and that received no comment from TRF were conveniently forgotten.
  #671  
Old 04-16-2021, 01:41 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nafplio, Greece
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
Yes. The events surrounding the bridesmaids’ dresses happened years before the Oprah interview. The bone of contention is over which woman was provoked to tears over an item of children’s clothing. This is the sort of nonsense that happens in the stressful run up to big family events like weddings, usually followed quickly by embarrassment on the part of the adults who were transiently worked up by such silliness, and then forgotten, (or even laughed about).

A reasonable person does not carry this around for years afterward. Oh, the media got it wrong and said Meghan made Kate cry and not the other way around? Who cares? Buckingham Palace decided not to wade into the murky waters of a disagreement over a preschooler’s tights, (or lack thereof)? Can’t say that I blame them.

And just like Meghan experienced hell on earth while Kate apparently only got “rudeness” from the press, the many unsubstantiated, unflattering/catty stories that have been printed about Kate and that received no comment from TRF were conveniently forgotten.
I really don't care about who made whom cry for this worthless reason. I think it's only a family matter. A successful, mature and self-created woman, like Meghan, should not have paid attention to it and should never mention it. A reasonable woman should passed by it. Meghan seemed very petty to my eyes.
  #672  
Old 04-16-2021, 06:24 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
Honestly, this may be a matter of perception. People like to bang on about how no one helped Meghan, no one told her about protocols or how things were done, etc. Kate would certainly know after all these years if it’s protocol for flower girls to wear tights (they do seem to always wear them based on photos of other royal weddings) and perhaps she believed she was helping Meghan by letting her know in case she didn’t. Most people wouldn’t want to put a foot wrong on their wedding day when marrying into the BRF in a place as historic as St. George’s Chapel. Had I been Meghan, if that really was what occurred, I can honestly say I’d have seen that as someone trying to help me become acquainted with protocol, fit in, etc.
I think it depends on how one defines "support" - if it's "they really want to help me so they tell me when I'm doing something wrong" or "they are so nice to me and agree with me all the time". And from everything we know and found out about Meghan, I'm pretty damn certain which kind of support she wanted to get not only from Catherine, but the BRF as a whole.

But honestly, it was a difficult time for both Meghan and Catherine, emotional, hormonal, all of the above. It should have been forgotten or laughed about after the wedding, not dragged into a worldwide interview a couple years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, and that includes the Sussexes, especially Meghan, who was accused by the media of saying and doing multiple things every week, most of which proved later to be false.
To be fair Meghan also said to the media a lot of things, which proved later to be false. Including dragging Archbishop of Cantebury (and the whole CofE) through the mud. I wonder if they still get the calls about "intimate wedding ceremonies in a garden"

If someone lies once, then twice, and about things that are easily proven as untrue - it's difficult then to take words of that person as true no matter what circumstances. Because people are always going to be left wondering "aren't they lying about that too"?
  #673  
Old 04-16-2021, 06:40 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
I think it depends on how one defines "support" - if it's "they really want to help me so they tell me when I'm doing something wrong" or "they are so nice to me and agree with me all the time". And from everything we know and found out about Meghan, I'm pretty damn certain which kind of support she wanted to get not only from Catherine, but the BRF as a whole.

But honestly, it was a difficult time for both Meghan and Catherine, emotional, hormonal, all of the above. It should have been forgotten or laughed about after the wedding, not dragged into a worldwide interview a couple years later.

To be fair Meghan also said to the media a lot of things, which proved later to be false. Including dragging Archbishop of Cantebury (and the whole CofE) through the mud. I wonder if they still get the calls about "intimate wedding ceremonies in a garden"

If someone lies once, then twice, and about things that are easily proven as untrue - it's difficult then to take words of that person as true no matter what circumstances. Because people are always going to be left wondering "aren't they lying about that too"?
To be fair, if it was meant to be forgotten or laughed about, it should never have made it into the press in the first place. I can understand Meghan's need to set things straight, but she should have been more adult and diplomatic about it. The "No no no... Kate made me cry" sounded so kindergarten.
  #674  
Old 04-16-2021, 07:10 AM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 367
From the “interview “

Meghan: A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something pertaining — yes, the issue was correct — about flower-girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings. And I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn’t make sense to not be just doing whatever everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot.

I remember being taken aback when I heard how Meghan framed this: there was seemingly genuine surprise that anyone would disagree with what she wanted - her definition of “support.” And that her feelings were the most important. I can understand why staff felt they were walking on eggshells.
  #675  
Old 04-16-2021, 08:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
I wouldn’t have been able to stomach the so called interview but this section of the transcript is even worse than I imagined. The quote you refer to seems to implicate Kate AND the entire family. Of course that is minus the body language etc.


You’re right. It’s actually worse than I remembered. She’s saying nothing was as it appeared- that seems to be a nasty swipe at the entire family. Things looked nice....but they weren’t.

That part of the interview was weird. She was perfectly capable of being complimentary about HM directly. Meghan’s not a fool. But Oprah twice tried to get her to specifically talk about Catherine. She deflected. Quite telling IMO.
  #676  
Old 04-16-2021, 09:06 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Poznan, Poland
Posts: 208
I can totally see Kate making a remark about the dresses and Meghan bursting into tears as it was an emotional time in her life (or she was acting and being overly dramatic, who knows). And Kate apologizing, because it was a nice thing to do, even if she didn't feel remorseful.


Bringing it up in the interview and not explaining what exactly happened was tactless. As the enitre interview was...
  #677  
Old 04-16-2021, 09:08 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalNight View Post
I can totally see Kate making a remark about the dresses and Meghan bursting into tears as it was an emotional time in her life (or she was acting and being overly dramatic, who knows). And Kate apologizing, because it was a nice thing to do, even if she didn't feel remorseful.


Bringing it up in the interview and not explaining what exactly happened was tactless. As the enitre interview was...
I think that there is a very definite coolness of relations between Kate & William, and Meghan so while she may not feel very good about any of the RF, she did possibly have more arguments or estrangement with the 2 of them...
  #678  
Old 04-16-2021, 09:42 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Norman, United States
Posts: 108
I tend to think that much of the emotions Harry and Meghan have experienced are common to the life changes they were going through. And, IMO, assigned motives to other people based on perspectives they already held. Moving to a new country/culture, starting a new job, entering a new family, entering an "intact" social group, getting married and starting a family are all experiences each and of themselves which bring stress, feelings of isolation and disorientation. To endure all of this under the spotlight so difficult and, no doubt, makes it all more complicated.

I just wish that Meghan had either had someone around her or listened to someone who tried to help her sort all of this out. Instead, and I believe Harry contributed greatly to this, she appears to have chosen to assign blame and incredulous intent to the actions of others. Yes, it is hard for anyone "fitting in" when they start a new job or enter a new family. Conflict is not unusual amongst a wedding party...ask any clergyman about that! Having a new baby is an isolating experience for most new moms. Good companies pay attention to and provide support for ex-pats precisely because the adjustment to a new culture is so stressful. Were the royals as attentive to all of this as they should have been? Maybe, maybe not. But I can say that many women have been through all of these difficult experiences with no one paying attention or providing "support." That does not make it right but it does make it unfair to cast such a shadow on your husband's family and/or to suggest that they need to re-invent their institution because you had such a difficult experience.
  #679  
Old 04-16-2021, 09:46 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Norman, United States
Posts: 108
On a completely shallow note, I would also like to say that Meghan should have listened to Kate about the stockings. Looking back at the pictures, no stockings with such beautiful dresses does not look right.
  #680  
Old 04-16-2021, 09:49 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I have to admit I have always rather admired Meghan's independent streak and her tendency to rebel against this sort of protocol. When protocol seems ridiculous and only being observed because it has always been done that way, I have been known to question and ignore it, too. And wearing or not wearing stockings or hats or gloves or nail-polish definitely fall into the category of things I would be inclined to rebel against, especially on my own wedding day. I also think that if it really was important for the children to wear tights for some sort of "protocol" reason, then I think someone other than the mother of one of those children should have been the one to explain the reasons to Meghan and made it clear this is something she would have to go along with, if indeed that was the case.
I can appreciate that as I like to push boundaries myself. But I think you would know when it may not be appropriate to do so. I don't flaunt tradition when I go to another country. I wear veils in Islamic countries even though I think it is demeaning and outdated. I but I show respect for their beliefs and traditions by conforming.

Meghan married into a thousand year old institution that values tradition and conformity. The trick is to know what boundaries to push. I doubt most British people cared about the color of her nail polish. But refusing to wear a hat when she was with the Queen struck some people as insulting and arrogant. She was effectively signaling that this tradition was ridiculous and she was so important that she didn't care.

That was her choice, but she shouldn't have been surprised when she was criticized. The more often she flaunted tradition, the more criticism she got and it became cumulative until the media became hostile.

She was effectively fighting the British establishment over things like wearing a hat. I don't think it was worth it.
__________________

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 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 12:08 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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