The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[US Royal Watcher]

I think the interview was a horrible idea. Both Harry and Meghan came off very badly imo.

But in Meghan's defense, her sister-in-law Kate was "dragged into it" because up until the Oprah interview, the story was that Meghan had reduced Kate to tears. This was a false narrative that was allowed to fester and grow for two years. Kensington Palace didn't correct it. Buckingham Palace didn't either. So the press has had a field day with " The bad duchess made the good duchess cry. See how nasty she is"?

So no. I don't fault Meghan one bit for speaking out and setting the record straight...

In fact, I would have informed the Palace hacks as soon as the false story got out that if THEY didn't issue a rebuttal, I would.

I think it is unfair to call palace workers "hacks." Apparently they are very hard working, not paid that much, and put up with a lot from Meghan. Also, as I asked when she complained that no one helped her get mental health care, where was her husband? Harry insisted on issuing a statement condemning the Meghan's treatment before they were engaged. They also had a chance to do so with Finding Freedom, but didn't.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Heavs and Erin9, even though Kate graciously apologized, the story that Meghan made her cry is still generally accepted as part of the Meghan Canon. I suppose that is the reason it was brought up in the Oprah interview.

As much as I question Meghan's motives and her tendency to be economical with the truth in that interview, I genuinely do not believe she brought up the DoC's name for reason of spite. The fact that the false narrative that Meghan was the heavy in this story was allowed to spread and take on a life of its own with no rebuttal from Buckingham Palace or Kate's office even. It's all well and good to apologize, but why passively sit around and allow a lie to become pretty much gospel in the press and more fodder for the legions of Sussex detractors?

Meghan is obviously still resentful and I don't blame her one bit for that.

Now....IF the rumor that Meghan slammed the door in Kate's face is true, that is indeed a game changer and might go a ways toward explaining why KP did not originally shut down the story "made her cry" story.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

It seems CBS has scrubbed this interview from their site. Can't find where to watch it again n full anywhere.

Heavs and Erin9, even though Kate graciously apologized, the story that Meghan made her cry is still generally accepted as part of the Meghan Canon. I suppose that is the reason it was brought up in the Oprah interview.

As much as I question Meghan's motives and her tendency to be economical with the truth in that interview, I genuinely do not believe she brought up the DoC's name for reason of spite. The fact that the false narrative that Meghan was the heavy in this story was allowed to spread and take on a life if its own with no rebuttal from Buckingham Palace or Kate's office even. It's all well and good to apologize, but why passively sit around and allow a lie to become pretty much gospel?

Meghan is obviously still resentful and I don't blame her one bit for that.

Now....IF the rumor that Meghan slammed the door in Kate's face is true, that is indeed a game changer and might go a ways toward explaining why KP did not originally shut down the story "made her cry" story.

If I remember correctly it was Oprah who brought that up. Meghan seems very quick to move on ltohguh not without adding to it.

 

[Moran]

Heavs and Erin9, even though Kate graciously apologized, the story that Meghan made her cry is still generally accepted as part of the Meghan Canon. I suppose that is the reason it was brought up in the Oprah interview.

You seem convinced that Meghan's version is the truth of the matter. May I ask why, especially when you say she was economical with the truth? What makes you think it was the truth or even "her truth" in this case, as opposed to an intentional lie? Even her mouthpiece Scobie claimed that no one cried.
I'm really curious why you're so sure Meghan is totally in the right here.

 

[Kaye1850]

I have watched the interview and I don't recall any such comment about her and Kate specifically.

Here’s the written transcript:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2475583/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News April 2021 -

Heavs, even though Kate graciously apologized, the story that Meghan made her cry is still generally accepted as part of the Meghan Canon. I suppose that is the reason it was brought up in the Oprah interview.



As much as I question Meghan's motives and her tendency to be economical with the truth in that interview, I genuinely do not believe she brought up the DoC's name for reason of spite. The fact that the false narrative that Meghan was the heavy in this story was allowed to spread and take on a life if its own with no rebuttal from Buckingham Palace or Kate's office even. It's all well and good to apologize, but why passively sit around and allow a lie to become pretty much gospel?



Meghan is obviously still resentful and I don't blame her one bit for that.



Now....IF the rumor that Meghan slammed the door in Kate's face is true, that is indeed a game changer and might go a ways toward explaining why KP did not originally shut down the story "made her cry" story.

There have been stories floating around about various family members not getting along forever- and whose fault it is varies almost by the week. They don’t get corrected one way or the other with almost no exceptions. This was not a unique situation IMO.

As you said- the truth is we really don’t know what happened between Meghan and Catherine. What if Meghan did slam the door in Catherine’s face? Well- then that doesn’t make Meghan look terribly magnanimous contrary to her version that makes her look pretty perfect. What if they actually both cried- also a version I’ve heard? Who knows?

All I know is Meghan dragged a story up that I’d long forgotten and shrugged off because that’s how much credence I give tabloid stories until given a reason to take them with more than a grain of salt....and used it to make herself look good IMO.

And I think it is incredibly unkind to say to a world wide audience: my sister in law made me cry. I promise most people watching had no clue about the story or ignored it as I did. And most probably don’t know much about Catherine either.....oh except she made Meghan cry.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Here’s the written transcript:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2475583/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/

Thank you

There was something in that interview where pictures of Meghan and Catherine together were shown and Meghan said something like appearances were deceiving. I can’t remember exactly, but she was clearly saying: we’re not close.

The below quote is the only part in the transcript Kaye1850 linked to that somewhat resembles what you describe:

Oprah: Was it what it looked like? You are two sisters-in-law out there in the world, getting to know each other. Was she helping you, embracing you into the family, helping you adjust?

Meghan: I think everyone welcomed me.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: And, yeah, when you say, ‘Was it what it looked like?’, my under-standing and my experience of the past four years is it’s nothing like what it looks like. It’s nothing like what it looks like.

If that's the part you're referencing, "Meghan making a point of telling Oprah that the pictures of her and Kate together seemingly friendly didn't reflect reality" is an incredibly misleading summary of the actual conversation. She clearly wasn't referencing her and Kate's relationship. She was referencing the experience of marrying into the royal family when she said that "it's nothing like what it looks like".

 

[Betsypaige]

I have a strong feeling if they’d gotten what they wanted with their ill conceived half in half out plan, this interview would never have happened. Their passive aggressive statements last year made their anger crystal clear IMO. And evidently nothing changed in a year.

I think they were/are angry, bitter and lashing out. So they threw everything and the kitchen sink into the interview.

I'm afraid I have to agree. I think that H and M were so frustrated with envy that they decided that they were going to lash out so that the institution WOULD be damaged (at least in the eyes of America). Let's face it - accusations, even if false, always cling to the person or people who is/are the target.

 

[Curryong]

I'm afraid I have to agree. I think that H and M were so frustrated with envy that they decided that they were going to lash out so that the institution WOULD be damaged (at least in the eyes of America). Let's face it - accusations, even if false, always cling to the person or people who is/are the target.

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here’s the written transcript:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2475583/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/

Thank you for posting the link.

Whilst the link claims to be the full transcript, it appears it is only a partial one. For instance, the comment regarding title and security is nowhere to be found. Does a true full transcript exist?

 

[Frelinghighness]

Thank you



The below quote is the only part in the transcript Kaye1850 linked to that somewhat resembles what you describe:



If that's the part you're referencing, "Meghan making a point of telling Oprah that the pictures of her and Kate together seemingly friendly didn't reflect reality" is an incredibly misleading summary of the actual conversation. She clearly wasn't referencing her and Kate's relationship. She was referencing the experience of marrying into the royal family when she said that "it's nothing like what it looks like".

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.

 

[Somebody]

This is an interesting quote from Meghan about the 'cry story': Meghan seems to be saying that she cried because Catherine wasn't supportive (enough) of her...

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.
(...)
It wasn’t a confrontation, and I actually don’t think it’s fair to her to get into the details of that, because she apologised.

What did being 'supportive' mean in that case? Just go with whatever she suggested because anything else would be perceived as being 'unsupportive' and would make her cry as she was at the border of crying every moment in the week leading up to her wedding [N.B. I do understand that final week must have been very stressful]? Or did Catherine truly say something inappropriate? I guess they might both have raised their voices in a less than pleasant conversation... with everyone walking on egg shells and being emotional wrecks?!

 

[_Heather_]

Heavs and Erin9, even though Kate graciously apologized, the story that Meghan made her cry is still generally accepted as part of the Meghan Canon. I suppose that is the reason it was brought up in the Oprah interview.

As much as I question Meghan's motives and her tendency to be economical with the truth in that interview, I genuinely do not believe she brought up the DoC's name for reason of spite. The fact that the false narrative that Meghan was the heavy in this story was allowed to spread and take on a life of its own with no rebuttal from Buckingham Palace or Kate's office even. It's all well and good to apologize, but why passively sit around and allow a lie to become pretty much gospel in the press and more fodder for the legions of Sussex detractors?

Meghan is obviously still resentful and I don't blame her one bit for that.

Now....IF the rumor that Meghan slammed the door in Kate's face is true, that is indeed a game changer and might go a ways toward explaining why KP did not originally shut down the story "made her cry" story.

I see what you’re saying here, I really do. But I have to ask, why are you so sure that Meghan’s version is the true and accurate version? You admit she was “economical with the truth” which is most definitely fair to say, why automatically believe that this piece was true? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe it was a sort of half truth. Either way we simply don’t know. But after the lies, the twisted words, and the half truths, I’m not inclined to take it for granted or give her the benefit of the doubt.

As for slamming the door in Kate’s face...if that’s true, it most certainly explains why Kate, and probably the entire family/Firm, felt no real need to issue any sort of statement or correction. That says a lot about Meghan and none of it is good, if it’s true. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard of them ever issuing a statement about rumors of who likes who this week, who is mad at who and why, etc. so I don’t know why they would in this instance. Why would Meghan’s demands carry more weight than anyone else that’s ever been the target of these stories and frankly, they all have been at one point or another.

 

[Frelinghighness]

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.

 

[Somebody]

There was something in that interview where pictures of Meghan and Catherine together were shown and Meghan said something like appearances were deceiving. I can’t remember exactly, but she was clearly saying: we’re not close.

Here is what she said:

Oprah: Did you feel welcomed by everyone? It seemed like you and Kate . . . at the Wimbledon game where you were going to watch a friend play tennis . . . 

Meghan: (Laughs)

Oprah: Was it what it looked like? You are two sisters-in-law out there in the world, getting to know each other. Was she helping you, embracing you into the family, helping you adjust?

Meghan: I think everyone welcomed me.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: And, yeah, when you say, ‘Was it what it looked like?’, my under-standing and my experience of the past four years is it’s nothing like what it looks like. It’s nothing like what it looks like. And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’.

After this Meghan moves on to describe how she was asked to "lay low" while she said she had only left the house 2 times in 4 months.

I'd say the fact that she is not acknowledging how Catherine supported her after she had just praised the queen, is indeed sending a very clear message.

 

[Somebody]

I see what you’re saying here, I really do. But I have to ask, why are you so sure that Meghan’s version is the true and accurate version? You admit she was “economical with the truth” which is most definitely fair to say, why automatically believe that this piece was true? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe it was a sort of half truth. Either way we simply don’t know. But after the lies, the twisted words, and the half truths, I’m not inclined to take it for granted or give her the benefit of the doubt.

As for slamming the door in Kate’s face...if that’s true, it most certainly explains why Kate, and probably the entire family/Firm, felt no real need to issue any sort of statement or correction. That says a lot about Meghan and none of it is good, if it’s true. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard of them ever issuing a statement about rumors of who likes who this week, who is mad at who and why, etc. so I don’t know why they would in this instance. Why would Meghan’s demands carry more weight than anyone else that’s ever been the target of these stories and frankly, they all have been at one point or another.

This part to me is rather damning and damaging to the royal family. Although given how Meghan's perspective at times is far from the truth, I am not sure what she is referring to (the truth-telling is probably about the cry-incident) but what is she implying with the 'they are willing to lie'? I fully believe that the palace 'spins'; and by leaving out details might give a different impression than 'nothing but the truth' - but that is something that Meghan and Harry will fully understand, I suppose. That's how keeping (or creating) an image works. But I wonder what full-blown lies the firm would be willing to spread just to preserve face.

that I came to under-stand that not only was I not being protected, but they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I'm not the poster you were replying to so I can't speak for that person. In my view, though, I would agree that they were absolutely desperate to get that interview out there before Philip died and it was no stretch to say that at the age of 99 absolutely no one believed he'd be dancing a jig a year or two, or even several months, from now.

As for why, well, even they could see how poorly it would be received if they aired all of that dirty laundry shortly after the death of the much respected and revered DoE. And, as Gayle King and Company have made clear, they believed it was something they had to do and they were taken aback by the backlash and were apparently mystified that everyone was focused on racism claims when they intended for everyone to be focused on, well, I'm not even really sure what.

By doing the interview and airing it when they did, they were able to avoid the backlash that would have come with "Attacking the Queen and the RF in the wake of the DoE's death" perception. They were able to say that no one knew he was going to die, they had no control over when it aired, etc. but had he died prior to the interview/airing then the entire thing would have had to be scrapped or their names/reputations wouldn't have had a chance of recovery. It's one thing to drag your family through the mud, throw them under the bus, and air your dirty laundry in public. It's another to attack your family while the family, the nation, and the world are grieving the loss of the longest serving consort in UK history.

Thanks for your thoughts, Heather! I’m sorry, I messed up my reply post - ?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

What did being 'supportive' mean in that case? Just go with whatever she suggested because anything else would be perceived as being 'unsupportive' and would make her cry as she was at the border of crying every moment in the week leading up to her wedding [N.B. I do understand that final week must have been very stressful]? Or did Catherine truly say something inappropriate? I guess they might both have raised their voices in a less than pleasant conversation... with everyone walking on egg shells and being emotional wrecks?!

Trying not to create unnecessary hullaballoo in the middle of an already stressful time? According to Camilla Tominey's original story (although Tominey isn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability), the argument was about whether or not the bridesmaids should wear tights. Meghan supposedly didn't want them to wear tights because it was a warm day whereas it was laid out as though Kate felt that, according to protocol, they should be.

Supposing that that was the root of the argument (again, I'm not sure how reliable I'd say Tominey is), I'd guess Meghan meant supportive in the sense that maintaining that the bridesmaids (in a wedding that is not your own) should wear tights because that's the right protocol is just unnecessary. What would it matter if they were wearing tights or not?

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.

How so? If I remember the interview correct, I felt it was pretty clear that the "what it looks like" part was in reference to her experience with everything. How she thought it would be versus how it actually turned out to be. That part wasn't aimed at the family.

 

[_Heather_]

Trying not to create unnecessary hullaballoo in the middle of an already stressful time? According to Camilla Tominey's original story (although Tominey isn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability), the argument was about whether or not the bridesmaids should wear tights. Meghan supposedly didn't want them to wear tights because it was a warm day whereas it was laid out as though Kate felt that, according to protocol, they should be.

Supposing that that was the root of the argument (again, I'm not sure how reliable I'd say Tominey is), I'd guess Meghan meant supportive in the sense that maintaining that the bridesmaids (in a wedding that is not your own) should wear tights because that's the right protocol is just unnecessary. What would it matter if they were wearing tights or not?

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.

 

[_Heather_]

What did being 'supportive' mean in that case? Just go with whatever she suggested because anything else would be perceived as being 'unsupportive' and would make her cry as she was at the border of crying every moment in the week leading up to her wedding [N.B. I do understand that final week must have been very stressful]? Or did Catherine truly say something inappropriate? I guess they might both have raised their voices in a less than pleasant conversation... with everyone walking on egg shells and being emotional wrecks?!

I have to say, I’m still a bit floored how often Meghan speaks about needing to be supported and protected. But just in this interview but constantly. I’m honestly not sure I’ve ever known a grown, independent, successful woman who needed this much support and protection.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I have a serious question here about a thought I've had.

Do you think it's possible that Meghan would still have wanted to tell "her side of things" had they been allowed to have the "half in and half out" way of doing things that was their original intention? Or did both Harry and Meghan feel they needed to "clear the air" because they didn't get things to go as they wanted them to go?

Seriously here. We tend to forget their original intention was to remain as senior working royals for the "Firm" representing the Queen while still pursuing the lifestyle they now have in California. The biggest thunderbolt was not being allowed to be "half in" with the perks that being working royal afforded them.

That is a really good question, Osipi! My thinking is that no, they would not have done this interview because they got what they wanted so don’t bite the hand that feeds you. But since they didn’t get what they wanted....As time goes on it feels more and more like revenge and a desire to lash out in anger and hurt because they did not get what they wanted. And they certainly thought they would get what they wanted or they wouldn’t have written what they did on Sussexroyal.

 

[Curryong]

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.

 

[Eskimo]

What baffles me most now is that if things were so bad and dire and horrible and Meghan was having so many problems including thoughts of suicide, why would she even begin to think of assenting to be half in working for the big, bad institution and living part time in the UK where the problems stemmed from in the first place. This is what doesn't make sense to me at all. Unless.... the half in was intended to "foot the bill" for their lifestyle they wanted?

Things just don't really add up to the way I believe Harry and Meghan want them to.

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.

 

[Moran]

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.

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.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

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.

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.

 

[Erin9]

I have to say, I’m still a bit floored how often Meghan speaks about needing to be supported and protected. But just in this interview but constantly. I’m honestly not sure I’ve ever known a grown, independent, successful woman who needed this much support and protection.

It is staggering really.

Harry and Meghan seem to have trouble picking a consistent narrative all around IMO. Is she independent? Or does she need constant support and hand holding? Pick a lane.

I have a feeling that when Meghan defines being supported, it means AGREEING with her completely. That’s not how I define it, but I think she does.

 

[_Heather_]

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.

Why couldn’t it be exactly that?...Meghan’s clearly shown that she reads a lot into things, doesn’t like to be told no or that she’s wrong, etc. Who’s to say with the stress of the week that she wouldn’t have seen the advice as an attack? We don’t know that it happened but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Reply to Osipi

The institution didn’t become big and bad until they didn’t get what they wanted. On the Sussex royal site, they fell all over themselves talking about serving TQ and the Commonwealth and gave details about how they planned to do this. They sounded “all in” with support for the Firm. I think they just could not believe nor understand why they didn’t get what they wanted. I agree that it makes no sense why they would want to work even part time for “the firm” if it was all so terrible. But didn’t it start with “we want to get away from the racist tabloids”? Now I don’t live in the UK and read that stuff but I could certainly believe that racist remarks or innuendo happened some. But in the interview the point that they made that was like a bomb dropping was not about the tabloids but some unnamed mysterious member of the RF. You are right; it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Betsypaige]

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.

Yes, it includes anyone who was proven to have falsely been accused of something...Like my Rabbi once said in a sermon, gossip is like ripping up a pillow where the feathers fly away; no matter how hard you try, it’s impossible to get all of them back. Gossip, false accusations, bad information....they spread like wildfire. I told my mother tonight that if she wants any info on Royals, come to me and I’ll find out from the proper sources. She told me tonight she read on FB that Philip had other children (ie: he has affairs), that Harry isn’t Charles’ son...etc.. She loves the Crown, and I’m forever telling her that it’s fiction. I saw in Twitter today that someone said that the Crown made her hate Philip.

Whatever I feel about H and M, I try to be fair.

 

[_Heather_]

I have a feeling that when Meghan defines being supported, it means AGREEING with her completely. That’s not how I define it, but I think she does.

I agree. I think it’s become pretty obvious that anyone who disagrees or says no is found to be unsupportive or attacking while the definition of supportive seems to be agreeing or saying yes. That doesn’t seem to be a good formula for creating healthy relationships in any part of one’s life but it certainly does seem to be how she defines supportive and unsupportive.