The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:42 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post


I suppose it all depends on the context? Why the remark was made at all.

From the headlines and the evaluation here I did not find the interview all that shocking.

The remarks about the tabloids should not be surprising to anybody, this is mostly well-known.

I think they have a point about the security. Although many members do not agree with me, I thought it irresponsible to take the security away. Harry needs security due to his birth, wherther he is in the UK, in Canada or on the moon. He did not chose to be born into this family. For now his son will be much better known that many of the Queen's grandchildren, which brings much more security risks to the table too.

As for Charles and William being trapped: I don't see why this is harmful for their reputation. If anything it will make people sympathise with them more. I don't think it is a surprise to anybody that the royals live in a golden cage and that this can be difficult at times.
.

It seems that we get a lot of this "sad royals" narrative (or "being trapped") especially from the British royals. True, and you probably know better than I do, there were also rumors than Willem-Alexander, Philippe or Frederik were once unhappy (maybe felt trapped?) in their roles, but, now, it seems that they are all very happily married and have very happy children (W-A and Philippe are even kings themselves).


Mutatis mutandis, I also see Charles and Camilla happily married and William and Kate having a well-balanced family life. Are they in some kind of trap that would make us feel sorry for them as Harry said ? I don't know them as well as Harry presumably does, but on the surface it doesn't look that way. But, even if it were true, contrary to what their public images suggest, I don't think Harry should be saying that openly on international TV and violating their trust on private family matters. He is free to speak about himself and his immediate family and how he feels, but do not drag your father and your brother into that narrative without their consent.


On the issue of security, I am also sure there are Forum members here who are far more knowledgeable than I am on the existing security arrangements for members of the RF , both in the UK and in Canada, and the limitations, not only financial, but possibly legal/statutory on those arrangements. I will let them comment then. I would just say that Harry should know those rules and limitations, not least by looking at other members of the Family, and that shouldn't have come as a surprise to him.


Personally, I think that Harry put a lot of emphasis on the security issue to justify his subsquent claim that the Netflix/Spotify deals were never planned a priori, but he had been cut off financially and needed money to pay for security. Oprah was obviously coordinating with them even she intentionally asked the question to allow them to defend themselves from the accusation that they were "money-grabbing royals".
__________________

  #462  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:44 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
This whole charade is absolutely beyond the pale. Their titles need to be removed or renounced quick smart. I am undecided whether this couple is naively stupid, or pathologically narcissistic. Either way they need to invest the money they have earned from this interview in some help fast. Absolutely disgusting and disrespectful behaviour.
__________________

  #463  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:50 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 23,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It seems that we get a lot of this "sad royals" narrative (or "being trapped") especially from the British royals. True, and you probably know better than I do, there were rumors than Willem-Alexander, Philippe or Frederik were once unhappy (maybe felt trapped?) in their roles, but, now, it seems that they are all very happily married and have very happy children (W-A and Philippe are even kings themselves).


Mutatis mutandis, I also see Charles and Camilla happily married and William and Kate having a well-balanced family life. Are they in some kind of trap that would make us feel sorry for them as Harry said ? I don't know them as well as Harry presumably does, but on the surface it doesn't look that way. But, even if it were true, contrary to what their public images suggest, I don't think Harry should be commenting that openly on international TV and violating their trust on private family matters. He is free to speak about himself and his immediate family and how he feels, but do not drag his father and his brother into that narrative without their consent.
Oh yes, I am used to royals complaining about their fate. In my own country Queen Beatrix and Prince Claus always emphasized how difficult it was. People thought that Prince Claus' depression was caused by his role. Queen Juliana mentioned in her enthronement speech that it was a heavy task that "nobody who would give it a good thought would want". Queen Wilhelmina wrote about 'the golden cage' in her autobiography. WA had problems accepting his fate and it was clear that the late Prince Friso thought the whole thing a farce. We always got the impression they were sacrifising themselves and would have preferred to do something else. They only stopped doing so in the 2000s, which must have been a consious decision.

So in that light I do not find Harry's comments surprising at all, esp. as being a senior British royal will expose you to a media scrutiny -deserved or not- that is far worse than elsewhere. If he should have said this on television is a matter that people will disagree on obviously. But I can not see much harm in it.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
  #464  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:55 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

On the issue of security, I am also sure there are members here who are far more knowledgeable than I am on the existing security arrangements for members of the RF , both in the UK and in Canada, and the limitations, not only financial, but possibly legal/statutory on those arrangements. I will let them comment then. I would just say that Harry should know those rules and limitations, not least by looking at other members of the Family, and that shouldn't have come as a surprise to him.
I think most people have felt trapped at some point, by the pressure of jobs, worrying about paying bills, looking after children, caring for elderly relatives, etc etc, and it's very stressful. I've been treated for depression and anxiety myself. OK, if you're born royal then your choices are limited, but, on the other hand, most people haven't got the option of packing it all in and moving to a mansion in California. And I think everyone's well aware that Royals may feel trapped. There were rumours that Princess Charlene had tried to run away before her wedding.

As has been pointed out, Kate's brother has been treated for depression. And Prince Philip's mother was subjected to some quite horrific treatment for mental health issues.

Regarding security, I don't think the Royal Family can win on this. There was a lot of complaining in the media a few years ago over security being provided for the York princesses. It was decided that most Royals should pay for their own security. That's nothing personal against either Harry or Archie. Yes, you can argue that Harry's at risk, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and, when any line is drawn, there will always be someone who just misses out and feels hard done by.
  #465  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:02 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by moby View Post
On Meghan referring to Sarah Ferguson as "Fergie", maybe that was another thing she did not research about Harry's relations and thought they were talking about the singer, the former member of the Black Eyed Peas...

I rather think the "former friend of Harry's mum" who becaem a confidante was Fergie. And she helped Meghan with trying to come to terms with the adversary she was shown by some members of the staff. Like most of Sarah's projects (apart from her daughters) this one didn't work out as well.
  #466  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:05 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
CBS This Morning has tweeted out that Oprah Winfrey will be joining the program on Monday 7-9am. There will be never-seen-before clips from the interview. Is this when the footage of the Sussexes' family will be shown? Or is it just only unseen clips from the interview?
CBS This Morning @CBSThisMorning
TOMORROW: @Oprah Winfrey will join us live with never-before-seen clips from her interview with Duchess of Sussex, Meghan & Prince Harry.
Watch @CBS Monday 7-9 a.m. #OprahMeghanHarry
2:01 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Sprinklr
https://twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/s...58624177229828
  #467  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:17 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,866
Oprah is a pretty fly lady. She befriended Meghan's mother to get the inside track and she had an agenda. She was set on Archie not having a title because he is bi-racial. Meghan was on the right track with the King George V and VI but the reason for LP's is pretty arcane. I would not have but it top of an American spouse's "must know and understand" but in all truth, she did try to explain but Ms Winfey wasn'tinterested.. British and Commonwealth fans understand the succession.

I think the protection issue for Archie was not about status but rather safety. While Meghan was pregnant a lot of white supremacists were very vocal online calling Harry a "race traitor" and when Archie was born the declared he had polluted the royal line and all three should be disposed of. That would also play into not letting her have a spur of the moment anything outside the palace.

I understand Meghan's fears when she was on her own which is why I believe HM gave them Fragmore Cottage within private land and with estate security. But, their temporary solution offended the media and they accused them of abandoning KP and the Cambridges. Then came the drone filming through the windows.

But by then the media started the whole hate on money spent on them and by them and talking about them living at Windsor as though it was Balmoral. What a ghastly series of highs and lows, a rollercoaster no less.

I believe Harry tried to tell her about how things would be but I think he both accepted some really weird (to anyone not royal) behaviors as normal and didn't even mention them and everyone underestimated the effect meghan's arrival would have, both good or bad.

The issue about colour is a hard one but Elizabeth and Philip have spent a lifetime working with the Commonwealth and I don't think they are closet racists. But, we don't know who the they are and both the royals and senior audes get referred to as The Firm.

I just think that there is so much miscommunication, tender feelings hurt I cant believe the UK and US are not preoccupied with Covid-19 instead of tearing g the BRF apart.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #468  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:36 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 31,968
I haven't seen the interview but my thoughts are that I don't see any way back for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after this in royal circles and the Prince of Wales has come off rather badly from what I'm hearing.
  #469  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:44 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
The Sussexes themselves publicly said they chose for Archie not to have a title, and explained that it was because they wanted him to grow up as normally as possible. Were they lying? Are we supposed to believe that the Firm was holding them hostage and threatening them with something awful if they didn’t say those things in press releases?

Of course Archie wouldn’t get security. The decision was made many years ago to take it away from Beatrice and Eugenie, who are in the same hierarchical position as Archie, as part of “slimming down” the monarchy in response to criticism over expenses. They’ve been doing without it this whole time, paying for it themselves in situations where they feel it’s needed. There’s no way Harry wasn’t aware of that. That’s probably also why Archie couldn’t have the title Prince - making Beatrice and Eugenie princesses, raising them to be full-time royals, then cutting them loose when they were no longer needed certainly didn’t do them any favors. I think that’s an example of the institution changing to suit the times and to be more fair to its minor members. Predictably, H&M don’t see it that way - apparently positive change doesn’t count as such unless it benefits them personally.

I feel like they’re deliberately trying to mislead people about the “concerns” raised over Archie’s skin color, which most certainly was not the reason he has neither a title nor security. It’s normal to speculate about what children will look like, and I don’t think speculating about skin tone must automatically be any worse than speculating about hair or eye color. How many on this board have said “I hope he has red hair”? I think it’s likely that the (admittedly out-of-touch) family members treated that subject the same way they would other physical traits, without realizing how that would be perceived by woke Meghan and increasingly-woke Harry. Sure, it’s possible it was worse than that, but if Meghan and Harry aren’t willing to say so, I don’t see any reason to assume it. It was apparent when they married that any children they had might not look white. Any objections to that would have raised at that point, and it sounds like none were.
  #470  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:49 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
I'm glad I didn't watch this- it sounds awful. I don't see how they can be allowed to represent the royal family in any capacity ( including titles and line of succession ) after this
  #471  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
I haven't seen the interview but my thoughts are that I don't see any way back for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after this in royal circles and the Prince of Wales has come off rather badly from what I'm hearing.

I may be wrong, but I didn't see many direct personal attacks on the Family. Harry repeated that he and William are "in different places" or something like that, but he didn't badmouth the Duke of Cambridge. Harry made it clear though that he and Charles are estranged, and that he was somehow disappointed because, I think, he thought Charles would have understood better what he was going through. He also mentioned Charles stopped taking his calls at some point, but that he is working to heal the relationship. That surprised me because I assumed he was still closer to Charles than to William. Much to my surprise too, Harry also made a big deal of being cut off financially and losing official security.


The part where the Family came out badly was mainly the race issue, especially them not standing up to the tabloids and the alleged comment on Archie's skin color. Meghan didn't hear the comment herself though; if I understood it correctly, Harry told it to her and, when he was asked about it, he didn't deny it, but said he would not elaborate. The timing of the alleged comment was also different, if I remember it correctly, in Meghan's and Harry's versions.
  #472  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:53 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Neverland, Austria
Posts: 74
They contradicted themselves so many times.
The majority thought it wouldn't be that bad. Yet it is that bad and the Royals do have a problem.
Having said this it'll pass I believe. They'll be bad and good news for them.
I have sympathy for mental issues but something struck be the wrong way.
It's Meghan and Harry that will have to find a purpose from no on. After Meghan's interview I don't see them as royal at all, the bridges are burned for good. I have no idea why Harry allowed Meghan to go as far and they were both sometimes unprepared which version is true.
The firm always wins and I believe it'll win this time too. I just wonder - what would be their response and strategy?
  #473  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:56 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I understand Meghan's fears when she was on her own which is why I believe HM gave them Fragmore Cottage within private land and with estate security. But, their temporary solution offended the media and they accused them of abandoning KP and the Cambridges. Then came the drone filming through the windows.
Actually, the drone photos were of the house they were renting in Cotswolds, which is NOT on private estate, like Frogmore Cottage. We never got any footage of them while living in Frogmore. Meghan was papped in Canada, Harry in LA, both of them in LA, but nothing from Windsor.
  #474  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:57 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 31,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I may be wrong, but I didn't see many direct personal attacks on the Family. Harry repeated that he and William are "in different places" or something like that, but he didn't badmouth the Duke of Cambridge. Harry made it clear though that he and Charles are estranged, and that he was somehow disappointed because, I think, he thought Charles would have understood better what he was going through. He also mentioned Charles stopped taking his calls at some point, but that he is working to heal the relationship. That surprised me because I assumed he was still closer to Charles than to William. Much to my surprise too, Harry also made a big deal of being cut off financially and losing official security.


The part where the Family came out badly was mainly the race issue, especially them not standing up to the tabloids and the alleged comment on Archie's skin color. Meghan didn't hear the comment herself though; if I understood it correctly, Harry told it to her and, when he was asked about it, he didn't deny it, but said he would not elaborate. The timing of the alleged comment was also different, if I remember it correctly, in Meghan's and Harry's versions.
The fact that they went so public about it all makes me think that they've burnt their bridges with the BRF.
  #475  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:59 AM
Tamara77's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Appalachian Mountains, United States
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
In the process i salute, because i'm a naughty boy, the members on this forum who said they "will eat their hat" if something remotely against the BRF had to come out from this interview because, you knwow, the Stellar Susssexes, abviously, were too busy with their amaaaaazing charitable work.

I can bring the sauce ...
Oh yes, I can think of a few who were just shy of the point of guaranteeing that nothing would be said to "harm the royal family". Actually, I came on this morning after watching the interview to say just what you have.....and you've said it better. Thank you. These are members I'll not be reading posts from in the future, and skip over.

I can't add much because there are so many valid and enlightening posts that have been made here already that I agree with. But I will say, the two of them need to be dealt with.
  #476  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:59 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by adjovie View Post
Irrefutable fact: Meghan was mistreated…!

This fact has nothing to do with liking her or not—period
I don't think it's irrefutable at all.
  #477  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post

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

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?
in short this interview is mostly fiction....
  #478  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:05 AM
Tamara77's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Appalachian Mountains, United States
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
I'm glad I didn't watch this- it sounds awful. I don't see how they can be allowed to represent the royal family in any capacity ( including titles and line of succession ) after this
It was very bad....beginning to end. I didn't know whether to feel sorry for Harry when his part of the interview began or angry. He sat curled up towards her with her fingers clutching his hand. He sounded nervous and uncertain at times, and the look of a weak, beta male about him. She is clearly in charge of this relationship.
  #479  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:18 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
After sleeping on the interview, the biggest revelations is that they're both fishes out of the water, not knowing what to do, not having any direction and desperately trying to find some sympathy in people.

Two things we know are a lie:
1. The "wedding before the wedding", for two reasons:
a/ they would not be allowed to marry twice, and the wedding in St George's Chapel was the traditional wedding ceremony (imagine if not? the press would have a field day)
b/ they need AT LEAST 5 people there, one to perform the ceremony, the marrying couple, two witnesses.
And Royal Family or not, the rules of the Church of England are the same for everyone.
2. The question about Archie's skin colour, which was, of all the things, corrected by Harry himself, after his wife lied. It didn't happen while she was pregnant, but before they even got married. His hesitation in discussing the whole conversation makes me think that Meghan lied not just about the timing, because he was pretty open (too open) with other things. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was made up.

Things that are possibly a lie or were twisted to show them as poor, poor people:
1. The security issue - they made us believe it was the big, bad RF who pulled their security, while it was Canada's decision, as they refused to pay for security of non-working royals (and they were funding their security since November to March, which is a nice bill...). I'm not sure if it's a lie lie, or they just are so out of their depth, thinking the title is only the title and it doesn't bring several issues while they are residing in a different country (especially Commonwealth country).
2. The refusal to get Meghan help - members of TRF, Harry including, admitted that they were getting help for mental health issues. Family openly supports organizations connected to mental health. I could believe that Meghan was offered a well-known, discreet professional and wanted someone else, or a specific place, and was said no.
3. The hospital appearence with Archie - I didn't see anyone commenting on that yet, but it was something that surprised me a lot. Were Harry and Meghan born yesterday? To claim they didn't know it was tradition to pose for some photos after leaving the hospital with the baby, and that they would do it if they were told they supposed to. I'm sorry what? It's not like Harry was there when his cousins, James and Louise, were born. Or his nephews and niece. Meghan was already a member of BRF when Louis was born and she didn't know... Am I supposed to believe that?
4. The titiles - Meghan twisted the issue so much it confused Oprah and everyone else around too, while knowing perfectly well that Archie would get the royal title after Charles becomes king. If there was an idea to issue new LPs that would change that rule, it wouldn't surprise me that much, as Charles was never a fan of Beatrice and Eugenie having HRHs. But that does not, at all, connects to them receiving security, as it was mentioned time and time again, plenty of royals, not to mention full-time working royals, do not have that protection.
5. The Royal Family was jealous of Meghan's popularity and thought she would be the new Diana, so they set on destroying her. I don't think any comment is neccessary.

Things I actually could believe in:
1. The institution was not ready to handle the couple's popularity and press reactions to Meghan. They tried all of their old tricks that simply did not work, hence asking Meghan to stay at home so that she wouldn't be seen outside, thinking it'll stop the articles.
  #480  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:19 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,929
Is there a full transcript of the interview?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Moreover, Archie wouldn't even be the first grandchild of a monarch who does not use or have the HRH as there is already a precedent, albeit voluntary, in the case of James and Louise. In any case, there would be no reason to assume that would have anything to do with Meghan or Harry personally (other than the fact tha Harry is a second-born son) and, much less, that it has anything to do with Archie's "race" or "skin color".
Many more cases of non-prince/princess grandchildren and great-grandchildren already exist in the form of Anne's children and grandchildren, Margaret's children and grandchildren, Alexandra's children, and so on. (I am aware that they are not entitled to be HRH under the 1917 LPs, but neither is Archie during this reign, so the comparison is appropriate.)
__________________

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 08:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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