The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:18 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I don’t think that any of us at this distance and not knowing Meghan personally, can say what state her mental health was in. No-one but the person themselves can say how they are feeling at a particular time. The partner may guess, and a psychiatrist can diagnose but nobody really knows but the individual.


And I believe Meghan when she says she felt suicidal, just as I believe she was extremely miserable for much of that last year in the UK.
Well, she looks great now, he does not, by the way, he looks and sounds like a very boring person, so it's a good thing they left, why do they keep whimpering. It's very tiresome.
__________________

  #842  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:22 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
So he's having the Andrew problem?
Possibly. He may have intellectually known that it was possible but it didn't hit home until her pregnancy. That is just a guess but it does explain the reports that the family didn't appreciate how popular Harry and Meghan were.
__________________

  #843  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:24 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Diplomatic fallout , nothing less ?
I' m dying ....
I think the Biden Administration needs to stay in its' own lane re: this mess. There is no need....NONE...for the POTUS or his spokespeople to comment on what is essentially a Windsor family crisis.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #844  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:27 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
The quotes seem to refer to repeated conversations and concern over "too dark", so as reported by H&M, it appears to be taken as racist. Harry refuses to say who it was because it is so damaging, so that seems to go beyond what would merely be insensitive.
That may have been the way that Harry and Meghan are portraying it but they are also alleging that Archie wasn't made a prince because of racism. That damages their credibility.

I cannot picture any of the royal family as being malicious on the basis of race. I have said some things that I didn't understand were hurtful, and I think we all do.
  #845  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:28 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
The quotes refer to repeated conversations and concern over "too dark", so as reported by H&M, it appears to be taken as racist. Harry refuses to say who it was because it is so damaging, so that seems to go beyond what would merely be insensitive.
Except Harry says it was only one comment when he and Meghan first started dating. They totally contradict one another's statement's which is why it hard to know what the truth is.
  #846  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:28 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Possibly. He may have intellectually known that it was possible but it didn't hit home until her pregnancy. That is just a guess but it does explain the reports that the family didn't appreciate how popular Harry and Meghan were.

What is an Andrew problem? Harry was not accused of having sex with minors, is it an idiom for something else?
  #847  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Actually, that may have been what Meghan meant when she said that "they" were talking about changing the rules on titles. I wonder if although this forum has been discussing a slimmed down monarchy for years, Harry didn't realize that if the monarchy was slimmed down, his children may not be working royals when William is king. I'm sure he knew on some level but it could have been different when Archie was born and it stopped being hypothetical.
I just don't see how that's possible. Supposedly he and Eugenie were close, and he was surely aware of it when they lost their security and were basically involuntarily retired as working royals. There was a lot of talk about how it wasn't really fair for the family to raise them as princesses with the expectation that they'd make a career of being working royals, then just cut them loose like that. According to press coverage at the time, it was done to allay public criticism about expenses. I imagine part of the reason Eugenie and Jack were happy to take over Frogmore was because they'd get a secured location without the need to pay for security for the property. Beatrice and Eugenie are the children of a spare rather than the heir. That's exactly what Archie will be when Charles becomes King. Harry may not be the brightest, but I don't think he was so dumb as to not understand that Beatrice and Eugenie's present reflects Archie's future.
  #848  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
The quotes seem to refer to repeated conversations and concern over "too dark", so as reported by H&M, it appears to be taken as racist. Harry refuses to say who it was because it is so damaging, so that seems to go beyond what would merely be insensitive.


That depends on whose version you listen to. Harry had one version. Meghan had another. One of the many problems with this alleged racism is their stories don’t match. And if one part of the story doesn’t match up, it easily calls into question ALL of it.

I don’t know what- if anything- happened. I do know they couldn’t keep their stories straight.
  #849  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:32 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
1. Without the full context of the ' colour' of Archie comment , it is hard to determine if it was tactless, rude , or blatantly racist. Now everybody is being accused even a 99 year old seriously ill man who served his country his whole adult life.

2. Williams children are the only great grandchildren to have titles, so the rules were not changed to exclude Archie. ( Why did Oprah not ask about the other great grand children)

3. Why would you not approach your doctor or family on a health matter , instead you go to HR, who deal with the staff. Do you not have a doctor, your husband leads on a mental health initiative. ( Simple question )

4,There wasn't a problem getting her passport to go NY, South of France, Lake Como.
You have a PA who organises your travel and deals with all the incidentals on your behalf including sorting out the travel arrangements. ( was she locked in and not permitted to travel )

5. Nobody asked her to stand outside the hospital to pose, well they refused to provide any information re the birth so there was no way there was going to be a photocall. I had always thought the private birth, christening and god parents were all about they wanted Archie brought up below the radar more or less a private citizen. Or as it now seems them stamping their feet in a tantrum because he was not to be titled a prince. Would it have been different if he had been given the title prince.

6. I wasn't allowed to go to lunch with my friends. Was she locked in the rooms.

7. The secret wedding... possibly a blessing, but not a secret wedding. They would have been permitted a low key wedding if they had wanted. You need 2 witnesses in this country to be married legally, she forgot about that.

My personal opinion is that Meghan has been very selective in what she said, positioning things in such a way to have full impact. I am disappointed that Oprah did not do her homework better and challenge them on some of the statements. Meghan very much wanted to put over the poor me message and Oprah either fell for it or was happy to run with it for the ratings. Channelling Diana etc. I am not saying life was easy for her, but I am not a journalist and I can pick holes in her argument.
Very good point raise indeed!

The accusation of racism just appear very vague and the events did not add up (i.e. discrepancy on the time that Archie's skin colour was brought up). If have hear it correctly, Meghan said "potentially", which again adds more uncertainty. It's almost as if Harry & Meghan are making blanket statements, pointing the finger at every royal family member and claim the institution is systematically racist without naming the individual.

As regards to Oprah not doing much research into the topic, some twitter users have pointed out that Andrew Neil would have done a better job questioning every details behind Harry & Meghan and have much better knowledge on the Royal Family, given that his experience in interviewing politicians. But then, as some pointed out, Harry and Meghan would not want to pick Andrew Neil, because he has a history of "destroying" guests (both politically/socially left and right) who have holes/inconsistency or lack of evidence in their arguments

Tim Shipman, political editor of The Sunday Times also criticised Oprah not doing proper research on the Royal Family
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound
Oprah seems unaware that several of the Queen’s grandchildren are not even HRHs. Pity
8:39 AM · Mar 9, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/...40222248439813
  #850  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:34 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
The quotes refer to repeated conversations and concern over "too dark", so as reported by H&M, it appears to be taken as racist. Harry refuses to say who it was because it is so damaging, so that seems to go beyond what would merely be insensitive.
Ah, but "the quotes" do not refer to repeated conversations.

Only Meghan refers to repeated conversations. Harry, who seemed to be genuinely shaken to his core to have it brought up, referred to "that conversation. I am never going to share." He looked like he had seen a ghost, and it seemed quite clear he was remembering a particular event.

My interpretation? There was one conversation- and most probably, one comment- made to Harry very early on when he was dating Meghan. This is what Harry recalled. He does not say whether it was about his future child being "too dark," either.

Later on, when Meghan was pregnant, he brought the comment up to her. This is probably the "repeated conversations" she remembers, and probably how she came to conflate the issues of that conversation with the issue of her baby's appearance- this is probably the context on it was introduced to her, and it may have been on multiple occasions.

And whether or not the comment(s) genuinely was about whether the baby would be "too dark" or one of the many other possibilities floated out there, a concern that he would be "too dark" is how Harry interpreted it, and how he conveyed it to Meghan.

This is my interpretation of what I saw last night.
  #851  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:34 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
What is an Andrew problem? Harry was not accused of having sex with minors, is it an idiom for something else?
No, absolutely not. We were discussing Prince Andrew's concern that his daughters would not be working royals and eligible for security.
  #852  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:36 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
What is an Andrew problem? Harry was not accused of having sex with minors, is it an idiom for something else?
Second son problem... how to survive and carve out a role for oneself when with every passing year, you are essentially becoming less essential to the institution because your brother's family is "moving in," but you yourself don't change.
  #853  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:40 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
- Charles's role is not to defend every single member of the family in the press... He probably told Meghan to carry on and keep calm.
LOL Thanks for the laugh. Maybe he gave her a mug with that written on it, too.
  #854  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:41 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Her Majesty is the head of the Church of England. I can't see the Archbishop presiding over Harry's secret backyard marriage ceremony without her approval ... which seems unlikely to have been given.

It must have been a private blessing, not an official ceremony.
I really am not making light of serious issues/conversations here, but my 80-year-old father has been going off all day about this. (He married my Mom in the U.S. first, and then of course, couldn't have a second wedding at his parent's church in England. Apparently, it still bugs him.)

He's been calling me all day, and I keep explaining that, obviously, they didn't officially marry in the garden, no rules were broken. (Why Harry didn't clarify it in the moment is beyond me.)

Two hours ago, he told me, in all seriousness, that he was going to email the Archbishop. I hope he isn't expecting a reply.
  #855  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:43 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Ah, but "the quotes" do not refer to repeated conversations.

Only Meghan refers to repeated conversations. Harry, who seemed to be genuinely shaken to his core to have it brought up, referred to "that conversation. I am never going to share." He looked like he had seen a ghost, and it seemed quite clear he was remembering a particular event.

My interpretation? There was one conversation- and most probably, one comment- made to Harry very early on when he was dating Meghan. This is what Harry recalled. He does not say whether it was about his future child being "too dark," either.

Later on, when Meghan was pregnant, he brought the comment up to her. This is probably the "repeated conversations" she remembers, and probably how she came to conflate the issues of that conversation with the issue of her baby's appearance- this is probably the context on it was introduced to her, and it may have been on multiple occasions.

And whether or not the comment(s) genuinely was about whether the baby would be "too dark" or one of the many other possibilities floated out there, a concern that he would be "too dark" is how Harry interpreted it, and how he conveyed it to Meghan.

This is my interpretation of what I saw last night.
It's certainly one plausible explanation for how the stories got conflated. My original remark was not that "that conversation" was 100% accurately relayed by M&H, but trying to figure out who the other party would be and how they would have ended up making such a comment.
  #856  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:43 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,735
In the scheme of things going forward into the future, I have to think that Harry and Meghan got what they wanted. Instant gratification. They've told their "side" of things with many points being obscured and no real context given to them. They've painted the picture that they've signed with Netflix because Daddy cut off the financial support which actually was compensation for working for the family "Firm" in the first place. They've set the world on fire with astounding ratings through the roof that people *cared* to hear what they had to say.

In the long run though, I believe this interview will be detrimental going forward and remembered much as Andrew's disastrous interview is remembered today long after it aired. They've basically said that the reason for the Netflix contract was to support what they needed. That, right there, lays to rest any idea that their motives for programming is to "make a difference". Like David and Wallis, they were front page news at the time of the abdication but as time passed, they were always deemed the "outliers" of the British Royal Family and pariahs. I'm afraid this is how Harry and Meghan are going to be perceived. They "once were important" and now they're not.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if after all this, the British charities and incentives that they did retain, request their removal. I think they've burnt their bridges both in their professional lives as much as in their private lives.

All for instant gratification.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #857  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:51 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
What is an Andrew problem? Harry was not accused of having sex with minors, is it an idiom for something else?
Andrew famously had quite the fit when he found out that Beatrice and Eugenie weren't going to be working royals. He spent years trying to persuade people that they should be paid from the civil lists, keep their security, have huge weddings, their children should have titles, the whole shebang.

That's what I meant by the Andrew problem.
  #858  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
It's certainly one plausible explanation for how the stories got conflated. My original remark was not that "that conversation" was 100% accurately relayed by M&H, but trying to figure out who the other party would be and how they would have ended up making such a comment.


I think it’s difficult to conclude anything when Harry and Meghan can’t even tell the same story to begin with.

Then there’s the reasonable question of what Harry supposedly heard versus what was actually said and intended. He expressed surprise that the supposed comment was made at all. That itself makes me ponder the true veracity of this racist comment.
  #859  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:57 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,502
Can someone remind me what the "falsehoods" were, again? Just "money-grubbing royals", or something else?
  #860  
Old 03-08-2021, 08:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Can someone remind me what the "falsehoods" were, again? Just "money-grubbing royals", or something else?
I believe she was referring to the bullying allegations against her by her staff. It's also possible that she was referring to the "she made Kate cry" articles.
__________________

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 08:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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