The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #421  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:14 AM
tihkon2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Stafford, United States
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by adjovie View Post
The skin tone of their children came from Harry (Meghan relayed it…Harry corroborated it)!!!!!

I doubt Harry would make that up
It sounded like one person asked Harry. If true, that one person was insensitive and ignorant at best and racist at worst. If the story is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post

Harry and Meghan are no saints. They have many faults. But this need to paint them as totally evil, self seeking, money grabbing...... its tired.
And I find the need to excuse them and paint them as goodhearted, selfless victims just as tired...
__________________

  #422  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:24 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Here is an instagram post by a royal watcher and fan, who has given Harry & Meghan the benefit of the doubt and best wishes for the future. This royal watcher and fan has stated that after watching the Oprah's interview and sharing thoughts, this would be the last post about the couple.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMJR6IHFmxK/

We have seen the reactions mostly from America, it will be interesting to see the reactions from the UK and other countries when the programme is broadcast. Yes some have been reading the live reports, but as I said earlier, the live feed often provides summaries rather than word-to-word transcript.

Speaking of live report, here's Chris Ship's analysis after watching the interview from his ITV's office at 1-3am. The article is published on Monday 8th March 6:14am, he must be so knackered now, even he already has double espresso

One of the shocking thing that I have read and I don't think many posters here have picked up is that nobody taught Meghan how to sing the National Anthem. I'm pretty sure she could search the words to God Save The Queen on Google and sing along on Youtube (There is actually a thread on the British National Anthem on this Royal Forum)

Quote:
No-one at the Palace, says Meghan, helped her when she arrived or told her what to do, how to act even how to sing the National Anthem
Harry and Meghan loaded up a plane and dropped bomb after heavy bomb on Buckingham Palace in their Oprah interview
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-08/...prah-interview

Here is the BBC's take and 11 dot-point summary (with some details underneath each point) of the interview

Oprah interview: Harry 'let down' by dad, racism claims and Meghan on Kate
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's much-anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey has aired in the US - with the couple sharing their side of the story about life in the Royal Family.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56316659

Here is the Live reporting from BBC, with updates (mostly analysis) still going on
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-56271580
__________________

  #423  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:24 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,757
Well no doubt the press will wonder if they were planning to change the letters patents to prevent the Sussex children from becoming HRH once Charles is King. I mean people on this board speculated and suggested it TL happens.

As for the skin color comment? Why is anyone surprised?

Overall I felt Meghan went out of her way to talk positively about the family. It was Harry would really went into specifics.

That said — truly fascinating interview.
  #424  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:28 AM
adjovie's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: New Jersey, United States
Posts: 34
Irrefutable fact: Meghan was mistreated…!

This fact has nothing to do with liking her or not—period
  #425  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:30 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 330
I don’t think when Meghan said that they got married three days before the wedding, she meant legal marriage. I mean there’s a whole procedure for it right?; from give notice for marriage where you have to fill the venue and date (changing place means to begin the process again and at least 29 days from the notice until you can get married), then the place also needs to have licence so you can’t just get married in some random place, also at least two witness so there’s no way of a “private ceremony with just the two of us and a minister.

But since she mentioned “the Archbishop” (likely the Archbishop of Canterbury), at least one tabloid will ask him or the church for clarification. And on the hand of tabloids, it could turn into something like abuse of “royal privilege” which would not look good for the church (particularly the Archbishop) as well.

My take is that it’s most likely a “faux ceremony” where they recited their vow to each other in front of the Archbishop when they met him.
  #426  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:30 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
It would probably be Harry more than Meghan who was put off by this, since the Queen had stepped in to do the LP for Charlotte and Louis. I think Harry expected to be treated with equal respect as the second son who was being relied upon to serve and to take on the burdens of royal life.

Plus, Harry's mother raised him in a way so that he would feel good about himself, and not inferior to anyone. Diana even said that she wanted Harry & William to be treated equally as brothers and human beings, even though she knew William would be the heir. If they wanted Harry to pull so much weight serving the crown, especially when Charles became King, why was Harry told that Archie would not receive the titles he was entitled to as Harry's son?

The other part of this is that Harry supposedly wanted to leave when he was younger, possibly to make a career in the military where he felt comfortable and productive. His family and the firm told him it was best that he retire and come back to help out the firm with his grandparents getting older. Harry was not happy about that but he obliged. Seemingly, from his comments during this interview, Harry never really saw a way out as a single man, especially once the military option was denied to him. It was reported that he had not left the royal fold when he was younger due to his love and respect for his grandmother. He talked very lovingly of the Queen, as did Meghan. I believe M&H both felt they would have the opportunity within the firm to play a major role with the Commonwealth. That would definitely have benefited the firm too, so the royal handlers were very shortsighted. Plus, there was too much press attention on M&H. And the success of the South Pacific tour and the way the crowds greeted them (and even some of the good press they received) was frowned upon by some factions in the firm.

There's all of the built-in strictures and rules of the system and pressure from the people running it, which does not appear to be any of the main principals like the Queen or Charles. It appears that QE-II and Charles more or less listen to advice and act based on the regulations of the system, along with fear of the press molding popular opinion.
I utterly agree with these two points, especially the last bolded text. People like QEII and Prince Charles do not have have an intimate knowledge of every single operational decision. It's like saying a top 500 CEO has knowledge of the day-to-day runnings of their company. No - they rely on trusted people to do that for them. But the worrying trend is that someone who is intimately close to them, i.e. Prince Harry, became the whistleblower and it appears they did not believe him. Instead, he had to leave, protect his family because of indecisions and denial from the top.

IMHO, the RF should have done all in their power to protect Meghan (and Catherine) a lot more. No one should have to go through what Meghan had to endure. The BRF's processes are broken and no one is willing bring their thinking to the 21st century. If this were an ASX/NASDAQ company, most would have called for the CEO and board of executives resignation. However, I have seen people forgive, and blame those who are the victims of hate merely because they belong to a century old family and hiding behind the veil of tradition. No people, not acceptable.

Are they telling the truth? I believe they are. There is no gain in them lying, especially Harry. Time will tell if changes are afoot in the BRF. I hope so for the sake of Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.
  #427  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:30 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
As for saying William and his dad are stuck as well. He would know. He lived in the same world. He knows the same restrictions. And he also knows and speaks to them. Its not like they are strangers. And he is right, being a prince is some what being in a cage. Look what happened when they wanted to get a job and step back a bit, they got kicked out. Its an either 'you are all in or you get lost and we don't want you around any more'. They have been treated worse then Andrew who has not been stripped of anything, despite his scandals.
This isn't the first time Harry is putting words into his family members' mouths, I believe it was back in 2017 when he was interviewed by an American reporter when he claimed that nobody wants to be King or Queen.



Even if what he said was true, it wasn't his place to talk about it. If anything, it sounded like he was salty that HE wouldn't be a King.
  #428  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:31 AM
tihkon2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Stafford, United States
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by adjovie View Post
Irrefutable fact: Meghan was mistreated…!

This fact has nothing to do with liking her or not—period
By some parts of the press? Certainly. By the Royal Family?

Nope. A possible fact. Maybe. Or maybe not. Have a nice day.
  #429  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:44 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tihkon2 View Post
By some parts of the press? Certainly. By the Royal Family?

Nope. A possible fact. Maybe. Or maybe not. Have a nice day.
She is not alone. Press has mistreated everyone. And if we are to believe Harry, the very nature of the RF mistreats everyone.
  #430  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:47 AM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
On another board a poster said this about it: This is a massive hissy fit because the Bank of Charles has closed and even with the Netflix and Spotify deals they don’t have enough to live how they want to.

Russell Myers
@rjmyers
Meghan has just claimed Buckingham Palace throw "holiday parties" for the UK tabloids and now I am wondering why I never got a ticket #OprahMeghanHarry
·https://twitter.com/rjmyers/status/1368751321696894978

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
The American's will buy it because again their support stems from AA women who love that a "Black woman" married a Prince. Also American's are naïve on the Royal Family.

So what happens when this is over? Will they go into hiding forever?
Americans don't care, and big business stay away, money loves quiet, after all, who wants to employ a person who makes up derogatory storries about her boss and sues every time something does not go her way
  #431  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:56 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
Russell Myers
@rjmyers
Meghan has just claimed Buckingham Palace throw "holiday parties" for the UK tabloids and now I am wondering why I never got a ticket #OprahMeghanHarry
·https://twitter.com/rjmyers/status/1368751321696894978
But they do host get togethers with the press. I have seen them referenced in the CC especially with Clarence House. I also know that Arthur Edwards and Robert Jobson both complained of requesting some meet and greet reception with Meghan and the as annoyed she declined. So she not entirely wrong here.
  #432  
Old 03-08-2021, 01:57 AM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Some of my biggest takeaways..

1. Security is costing them an arm and a leg and they’re really bitter that they have to pay for it.

2. It seems ALL the money from the trust Diana left them is gone— it only tied them over until the Netflix and Spotify deals came through...

3. They’re really bitter that The Queen did not make Archie an HRH
we can probably hear more of the same on Spotify, but I thought Netfix only pays them when they produce something

Quote:
Originally Posted by intothesea View Post
Well, the winner is Oprah! What a big scoop for her. It will be in her bio from now on.
I doubt it, everyone I know who watched, though it was very boring and fake, don't forget, tomorrow Oprah will share her thoughts on the interview, and I think, her views will be driven by the numbers and general reaction. By the way did anyone see the ratings?
  #433  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:11 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Chris Ship is doing an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain and has been told that it's not The Queen nor Prince Philip that commented on Archie's skin colour.
Good Morning Britain @GMB
‘I’ve been told it’s not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh, so that leaves just Prince Charles, Prince William or their wives.’
ITV News Royal Editor @ChrisshipITV reveals who the member of the Royal Family who had concerns over Harry and Meghan’s son’s skin color could be.
5:44 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Grabyo
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1368814859182342149

There are more clips on the Good Morning Britain's tweeter feed about Chris Ship's contribution.
  #434  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:13 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Chris Ship is doing an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain and has been told that it's not The Queen nor Prince Philip that commented on Archie's skin colour.
Good Morning Britain @GMB
‘I’ve been told it’s not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh, so that leaves just Prince Charles, Prince William or their wives.’
ITV News Royal Editor @ChrisshipITV reveals who the member of the Royal Family who had concerns over Harry and Meghan’s son’s skin color could be.
5:44 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Grabyo
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1368814859182342149

There are more clips on the Good Morning Britain's tweeter feed about Chris Ship's contribution.

So they're throwing Charles, William, and their wives under the bus. Besides, Anne, Andrew, Edward are also senior members of the royal family.
  #435  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:16 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
I don’t think when Meghan said that they got married three days before the wedding, she meant legal marriage. I mean there’s a whole procedure for it right?; from give notice for marriage where you have to fill the venue and date (changing place means to begin the process again and at least 29 days from the notice until you can get married), then the place also needs to have licence so you can’t just get married in some random place, also at least two witness so there’s no way of a “private ceremony with just the two of us and a minister.

But since she mentioned “the Archbishop” (likely the Archbishop of Canterbury), at least one tabloid will ask him or the church for clarification. And on the hand of tabloids, it could turn into something like abuse of “royal privilege” which would not look good for the church (particularly the Archbishop) as well.

My take is that it’s most likely a “faux ceremony” where they recited their vow to each other in front of the Archbishop when they met him.
Actually this might be true - it has long been rumored that The Wessex's got married in 1997. Reason for this logic they do not celebrate their wedding anniversary as their wedding anniversary. They celebrate some other day completely. Of course they might have some sentiment around that day, but I would place money that they were married in November 1997.
  #436  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:20 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Chris Ship is doing an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain and has been told that it's not The Queen nor Prince Philip that commented on Archie's skin colour.
Good Morning Britain @GMB
‘I’ve been told it’s not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh, so that leaves just Prince Charles, Prince William or their wives.’
ITV News Royal Editor @ChrisshipITV reveals who the member of the Royal Family who had concerns over Harry and Meghan’s son’s skin color could be.
5:44 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Grabyo
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1368814859182342149

There are more clips on the Good Morning Britain's tweeter feed about Chris Ship's contribution.
The royal reporters have gotten so much wrong in the past, why should I believe him about this?
  #437  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:23 AM
fandesacs2003's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Angola
Posts: 4,892
I did not watched the interview (not clear if it was possible), but saw some excerpts.
Some first thoughs.
1. If it is true that when Meghan was pregnant the BRF was having discussions about the skin color of the baby to be born. Passing after the sad racist side of such a discussion.. Meghan is a metisse, her dad is white and her mum is black, consequently it is expected for her future kids to be influenced by both sides. The exact degree can be calculated only by genetists, (if such a calculation is possible). This was known when Meghan became the bride to be for Harry. So they were discussing what exactly? It is like having a parent blond and the other with dark hair. Baby can be anything inside this range, when it is born, you see.. So I don't really see the point of such a discussion / guessing against Meghan.
2. She said she was not prepared at all she was left alone inside the BRF without knowing anything.. OMG. This exactly happened with Diana (very touching to make similarities..) but Diana was at 1980, she was 20 years old, and never had any experience I life.
Meghal was more than 30 years old, she built already her life and career before meeting Harry, and they have been dating more than one year. She knew who is Harry, internet exists and she had plenty of time to think about all this. She could even ask him about her future life inside BRF, point that Diana could not do, as her contacts with Charles before marriage were very limited and official. So I cannot accept that Meghan did not know what to expect by entering the BRF. I just believe that she thought being able to change all this and live as her previous life. She didn't manage to, and this was the issue.
Entering a RF, and more the British one, is giving behind almost all your previous way of thinking and living, and adopt some rules. This is known and happens to all royal brides, and grooms also. If you cannot accept, you just not do the step, don't pass Rubikon.
  #438  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Actually this might be true - it has long been rumored that The Wessex's got married in 1997. Reason for this logic they do not celebrate their wedding anniversary as their wedding anniversary. They celebrate some other day completely. Of course they might have some sentiment around that day, but I would place money that they were married in November 1997.
if they were marred in 1997, they could not legally get married again in 1999. Same goes with Meghan.
  #439  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:46 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
There are two rather odd things that are confusing myself and the two people that I am currently with?


1. Harry not knowing what to do with a suicidal person - I mean as a patron of mental health and wellbeing. Simply not knowing where to turn after how many years of supporting those charities, doesn't make sense. Especially when you can turn to your own charities, as in simply ring up Heads Together. I have also been told that many that a gentleman's agreement exists for a member of the family that seeks help at a therapists, and has spend time at a center. If this is true - then I don't see what a similar agreement could not be done for the Sussex's - and it also throws the whole the family didn't support me in the water.


Are royals scared of the tabloids - yes. I have seen deals gone down, where a story will be scrapped if they are given access to other stories early. I have been told of newspapers that will never write a good thing about a royal as they were slighted back in the early 1990's. It is one of the reasons why you do not play a media game - get out of it and stay out of it. Never believe your own press - especially when it is favorable. Do not feed tabloids stories, do not believe their friendship happy stories as they will easily place a lying damaging one just as fast. Tabloid news is a creature unto itself.
  #440  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:52 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Apologies if anyone's already said this - there were 19 pages of comments by the time I logged on! Archie was supposed to be the Earl of Dumbarton. It was announced, when he was born, that Harry and Meghan wanted him to be Master Mountbatten-Windsor: it was their choice that he didn't have the title of Earl.


Great-grandchildren of the monarch are not prince/princess unless they're the children of the second-in-line, and even the idea that all grandchildren of the monarch are prince/princess effectively ended when Louise was born, and Edward and Sophie decided that she should be Lady Louise rather than Princess Louise.


Regarding security, this seems to be a no-win situation. There were a lot of complaints about the idea of the taxpayer funding security for Beatrice and Eugenie. It was pointed out that a lot of famous people feel at risk but pay for their own security, and it was widely felt that the Yorks should pay their own security costs. The same would apply to the Sussexes' children.

I've just had a catch-up on Facebook, and not one of my friends has posted anything about the interview. This isn't because they're not interested in the Royal Family: we had a live discussion on the day of Harry and Meghan's wedding, and there was loads of speculation about what each of the children would be named. But no-one seems to be interested enough in this to have anything to say about it.


No, they couldn't have had a secret wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury - a) it would have been invalid without witnesses and b) they could not then have had a second wedding (only a blessing). They may have had a rehearsal, to make sure that everyone knew the order of service, but even that's unlikely, as bridesmaids etc would usually be present for that. Did they really need to involve the Archbishop of Canterbury in this, as well as the Royals?
__________________

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 with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 - Marengo The Electronic Domain 746 03-12-2021 05:30 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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