The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:49 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchesschicana View Post
Translation, for once in Harry's life they didnt give in to anything he demanded. They didnt want him to sell out hisnvconnection to royalty while working for his family. Does he not realize how this would look?


Question, why would H+M want to stay and work with people who are racist and made them feel trapped? They didnt stayy because the royals didnt give in to their demands
When Oprah asked him why they left he said:

Oprah: So when I ask the question, ‘Why did you leave?’ the simplest answer is . . ? 

Harry: Lack of support and lack of understanding.

Oprah: So, I want clarity. Was the move about getting away from the UK Press? Because the Press, as you know, is everywhere. Or was the move because you weren’t getting enough support from The Firm?

Harry: It was both.

Oprah: Both.

Harry: Yeah.


It's hard to demand support and understanding. You can hope for it, you can ask for it, but I don't think you can demand it.
__________________

  #342  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:52 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: cu, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by caethi View Post
In my opinion, Meghan was targeted by the tabloids and attacked in part because she was biracial, and in part because she was divorced and American--an "outsider".


There were factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the interview. Whether these were due to naeivity, lack of knowledge, lack of openness to learning the nuances of a new situation, or arrogance I cannot say.



Other than her mother and loyal friends, Meghan appears to have a history of leaving people behind or cutting people off. Of course I don't know the details and I cannot be sure. (None of us here can be sure about any part of this story). I don't know why this is.



Meghan and Harry have created drama where none was needed. They could have settled all of this by facing it head-on. I don't know about you, but if I felt genuinely suicidal and occupied a privileged position as wife of Prince Harry, I would get help through my own means.



People who display behaviour like Meghan and Harry display might be showing signs of early childhood trauma, or they may have a problematic pattern of coping , or both.



Public figures who participate in tell-all (sort of) interviews are generally not seeking to shed light on systemic problems (e.g. racism), but seeking to gain attention for themselves. It's useful to ask ourselves, what is to be gained (I don't mean cash)? Who benefits from the drama?



People like H and M who emphasize their own perceived helplessness and their perceptions of being wronged are playing psychological games, consciously or unconsciously.



The fact that two separate communications emphasize that "Harry and Meghan are much loved members of the family" is very telling; BRF communications do not usually contain such personal messages. Parents who send messages like this are sometimes taking the opportunity to convey a message in the only forum left to them, a public one; they want the "child/children" to know that they love them, even though the "child/children" are currently rejecting them. (I have to say that in the case of H and M, the Queen likely feels some responsibility to let the public know that the "children" haven't been rejected. It could be spin, but it has a personal ring and I don't think so).



I do not think Meghan is a bad person. I think people like Meghan and Harry are troubled people.



Systemic issues need to be corrected, but not this way.



I am going to try to refrain from further comments.
I really appreciate your comments and agree with basically everything you said... my only potential point of disagreement being what any of us would have done if suicidal in Meghan's position, only because I do believe when you're that depressed you don't necessarily think logically so it's hard to say.
__________________

  #343  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:53 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
Janina says Meghan authorized her to speak. Interesting.

Also Janina says the whole family knew, which contradicts what Harry said. He said he was too ashamed to tell his family.
Well, it doesn't exactly contradict it. Harry not telling them doesn't mean Meghan couldn't have told them. Though if that was the case, surely someone would have tried to discuss it with Harry?
  #344  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:54 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by caethi View Post
In my opinion, Meghan was targeted by the tabloids and attacked in part because she was biracial, and in part because she was divorced and American--an "outsider".


There were factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the interview. Whether these were due to naeivity, lack of knowledge, lack of openness to learning the nuances of a new situation, or arrogance I cannot say.



Other than her mother and loyal friends, Meghan appears to have a history of leaving people behind or cutting people off. Of course I don't know the details and I cannot be sure. (None of us here can be sure about any part of this story). I don't know why this is.



Meghan and Harry have created drama where none was needed. They could have settled all of this by facing it head-on. I don't know about you, but if I felt genuinely suicidal and occupied a privileged position as wife of Prince Harry, I would get help through my own means.



People who display behaviour like Meghan and Harry display might be showing signs of early childhood trauma, or they may have a problematic pattern of coping , or both.



Public figures who participate in tell-all (sort of) interviews are generally not seeking to shed light on systemic problems (e.g. racism), but seeking to gain attention for themselves. It's useful to ask ourselves, what is to be gained (I don't mean cash)? Who benefits from the drama?



People like H and M who emphasize their own perceived helplessness and their perceptions of being wronged are playing psychological games, consciously or unconsciously.



The fact that two separate communications emphasize that "Harry and Meghan are much loved members of the family" is very telling; BRF communications do not usually contain such personal messages. Parents who send messages like this are sometimes taking the opportunity to convey a message in the only forum left to them, a public one; they want the "child/children" to know that they love them, even though the "child/children" are currently rejecting them. (I have to say that in the case of H and M, the Queen likely feels some responsibility to let the public know that the "children" haven't been rejected. It could be spin, but it has a personal ring and I don't think so).



I do not think Meghan is a bad person. I think people like Meghan and Harry are troubled people.



Systemic issues need to be corrected, but not this way.



I am going to try to refrain from further comments.
I tend to lean towards what you pointed out, that H&M have personal issues and one way that got out was through this interview.
Was it a kind of cry for help?

I don't believe the BRF could say anything less than that they in one way or another are still fond of H&M.
Saying or even hinting that they dislike or have shut the door on H&M would be a PR mistake as well as escalating the conflict.

Psychological games? That sounds interesting! I'm not familiar with that concept. How would that manifest itself typically?
  #345  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:02 AM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,131
There is an article in the Times by Valentine Low titled "Harry and Meghan: Where Buckingham Palace disagrees with the duke and duchess". I am not subscriber, but someone has posted archive articles that could be read without a subscription. Is there one of this article that someone could link? I would love to read it.
  #346  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:09 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Sorry to correct you, Piers was a judge on Britain’s got talent between series 1 and 4 (2007-2010). He was also a judge on America’s got talent.

I’m actually very divided on this. Whilst I strongly dislike his interview style, his views and the way he walked off stage but at the same time I believed in freedom of speech especially on a commercial tv (unlike BBC that has to be impartial).

Watch this video (I have posted earlier) on what I meant. The YouTuber explained it much better than I do

Piers Morgan is definitely no Andrew Neil who interview straight to the point regardless the guest is on the left or right. And as I said earlier, if you want a clear and robust interview on Harry and Meghan, Andrew Neil would be the perfect choice, because he would not let guests fluff around and making points that are not backed up. He is also very knowledgeable and expects his guests to be the same. He would certainly grill Harry and Meghan on getting every details correct and clear

I agree with you that Piers is probably not going to go away, given that he somehow has the personality of being controversial (which lead to good ratings on GMB, as mentioned in that video above). I personally think Michael Portillo would be great in replacing Piers Morgan due to his experience in politics, presenting and has a great personality. The other possibility could be Jeremy Clarkson
I'd much rather see someone like Andrew Neil interview H&M but I doubt that would ever happen. They wouldn't want to be asked hard questions or have someone probe to deeply. I truly feel the Oprah interview was planned, rehearsed and choreographed to the nth degree from the stories they told, to the words they used, to their gestures and expressions and I include Oprah in several of those. This wasn't an interview, it was a performance designed to elicit the greatest amount of sympathy out of the largest possible audience.

They need a career now. The bank of Charles is closed forever and the bank of William is never going to open. I feel firmly that by the Queen not seeing Harry when he was back in the UK she was telling him she was supporting Charles in his decision.

Harry and Meghan now need the public to back up their Spotify and Netflix projects and they need more deals to come in. Because let's face it these are not two people who are going to buy a smaller $1million mansion outside of California and live a relatively modest lifestyle like some of Harry's cousins. They want the ultra-lux life and they're going to need money to fund it. That means getting people to pay attention. This interview was their start. No matter what Harry says we'll hear more from them.

And all this debating we're doing, this picking apart of details, trying to parse the truth from word salads and carefully curated stories this is what they, Oprah, and CBS wanted. It's all a big business.
  #347  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:21 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
Janina says Meghan authorized her to speak. Interesting.

Also Janina says the whole family knew, which contradicts what Harry said. He said he was too ashamed to tell his family.
Every story just contradicts a previous story which is why it's harder and harder to believe any of it at this point.
  #348  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:23 AM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Duchess formally complained to ITV 'out of concern for others dealing with their own mental health' after the presenter said he didn't believe a word she said and refused to apologise

I wonder how Hollywood will react to this, I doubt big business will want to deal with someone so litigious. Morgan basically got fired for his opinion.
  #349  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:29 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
Duchess formally complained to ITV 'out of concern for others dealing with their own mental health' after the presenter said he didn't believe a word she said and refused to apologise.

I wonder how Hollywood will react to this, I doubt big business will want to deal with someone so litigious. Morgan basically got fired for his opinion.
Can someone fill me in on British law here? Is this just her formally voicing her disagreement, or is this some legal process where someone investigates the complaint and could take action against Morgan and/or the network if they don't retract his statement?
  #350  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:30 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
It is not nasty. Archie would've either been with his parents or at the palace. It's being practical.
It is not as simple as that.

"A source close to them shared today how the fact Archie didn’t have his own security was felt when the family was on their tour of South Africa in 2019. The source claimed that when Harry was traveling to other parts of Africa, Meghan would have to choose to leave one of her protection officers with her son and have fewer for herself or leave Archie without protection."


https://www.townandcountrymag.com/so...family-impact/
  #351  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:30 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
And all this debating we're doing, this picking apart of details, trying to parse the truth from word salads and carefully curated stories this is what they, Oprah, and CBS. It's all a big business.
From where I sit, just *one* statement from Harry and Meghan that can be proven to have as many holes as swiss cheese, pours a bucket of questioning on *everything* stated in that interview. Which is honest truth? Which is elaboration? Which is misunderstanding? What is pure fabrication to fit a narrative? Without factual backup, its all perspective of the person talking.

The picture painted by this interview wasn't a clear and precise presentation of facts that can be backed up. A lot of it was perception of something as seen by an individual. The one that threw me off the most was the claim of Archie not getting "prince" because his skin tone may be "darker" and without the "prince" title, he'd not be eligible for security. Boris Johnson does not hold any title and he's covered by the same Metropolitan Police Protection Command that protects the royals and so is Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. Mr. Khan's skin tone didn't come into play there either. That made me question Meghan's perspective on security.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #352  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:30 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
There is an article in the Times by Valentine Low titled "Harry and Meghan: Where Buckingham Palace disagrees with the duke and duchess". I am not subscriber, but someone has posted archive articles that could be read without a subscription. Is there one of this article that someone could link? I would love to read it.
Here you are!

https://archive.vn/yapl4
  #353  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:31 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
Well, it doesn't exactly contradict it. Harry not telling them doesn't mean Meghan couldn't have told them. Though if that was the case, surely someone would have tried to discuss it with Harry?
That’s why this is a little confusing. Meghan doesn't mention telling the family, just the senior staff member and HR. Couple that with Harry’s answer, and it gives me the impression that they didn’t tell his family. At least not right away. Maybe Meghan and Harry told the family after Meghan had gotten help, but from the answers they gave Oprah, it doesn’t seem the family was initially aware of how much pain she was in.

And yeah, I have a hard time believing that no one in his family would discuss it with Harry if they knew. Harry himself has praised William for being the one who pushed him to get help when he was in a dark place. People have also pointed out that Charles tried to get Diana help. So if Meghan told them she was suffering, I can’t see either of them just ignoring it and not reaching out to Harry.
__________________
  #354  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:49 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
From where I sit, just *one* statement from Harry and Meghan that can be proven to have as many holes as swiss cheese, pours a bucket of questioning on *everything* stated in that interview. Which is honest truth? Which is elaboration? Which is misunderstanding? What is pure fabrication to fit a narrative? Without factual backup, its all perspective of the person talking.

The picture painted by this interview wasn't a clear and precise presentation of facts that can be backed up. A lot of it was perception of something as seen by an individual. The one that threw me off the most was the claim of Archie not getting "prince" because his skin tone may be "darker" and without the "prince" title, he'd not be eligible for security. Boris Johnson does not hold any title and he's covered by the same Metropolitan Police Protection Command that protects the royals and so is Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. Mr. Khan's skin tone didn't come into play there either. That made me question Meghan's perspective on security.
I hate to say it but I don't think they care about us. The people who are going to pick apart their statements, (I think we're helpful in that we're keeping the story going) or the people watched and said "wait some of this doesn't add up." They care about the people who got on Twitter and gave them their wholehearted support. The people who wanted to "burn down the monarchy." Because those people are going to watch the Netflix stuff and listen on Spotify. That's their market. That's who they want to appeal to.

Some people are asking why they're keeping the titles I firmly believe it's because they're now a symbol of the "institution" that's done them so wrong. And please note that that word was used. Because it makes the whole monarchy feel cold and impersonal, like a big machine that chews you up and spits you out. That's why I said I FIRMLY believe there was a reason for EVERYTHING that was done in that interview and that it was planned and rehearsed multiple times.
  #355  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:49 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Re: the apparent contradictions between some of Meghans' account and Harry's. To me, this gives even more weight to them not telling lies because if you ask two people to recount the same event or conversation, they'll often sound contradictory despite being broadly the same gist. Also, the thing about timescale matters too because something can be true in January but by July the opposite can be true. People talking about events over a span of a couple of years can recount something that was true within the time period they're referring to and then can say something contradictory but it's set at a different time. An example could be "I didn't tell my family" but later in the timescale "my family all knew".

The above is one of the reasons why I think interviews are often not a great idea because of the range of interpretations people can put on what is said. "He means this"..."No he means that".
  #356  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:01 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
Well, it doesn't exactly contradict it. Harry not telling them doesn't mean Meghan couldn't have told them. Though if that was the case, surely someone would have tried to discuss it with Harry?
I think Harry's word will speak better than any answer of my own:

Quote:
Oprah: So then did you tell other people in the family, ‘I have to get help for her. We need help for her’?
Harry: No. That’s just not a conversation that would be had.
Oprah: Why?
Harry: I guess I was ashamed of admitting it to them.
Oprah: Oh.
Harry: And I don’t know whether... I don’t know whether they’ve had the same... whether they’ve had the same feelings or thoughts. I have no idea. And it’s a very trapping environment that a lot of them are stuck in.
That does not suggest that BRF at any point was informed about the severity of Meghan's (and Harry's) issues.
  #357  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Re: the apparent contradictions between some of Meghans' account and Harry's. To me, this gives even more weight to them not telling lies because if you ask two people to recount the same event or conversation, they'll often sound contradictory despite being broadly the same gist. Also, the thing about timescale matters too because something can be true in January but by July the opposite can be true. People talking about events over a span of a couple of years can recount something that was true within the time period they're referring to and then can say something contradictory but it's set at a different time. An example could be "I didn't tell my family" but later in the timescale "my family all knew".

The above is one of the reasons why I think interviews are often not a great idea because of the range of interpretations people can put on what is said. "He means this"..."No he means that".
You make some good points but although the discrepancies prove that they didn't coordinate what they were going to say, they also don't prove that what they say is true. To me, his reaction was one of someone who was caught in an untruth - looking away, becoming vague, etc.

Other people can certainly see it differently. Many posters have conceded that it is possible that there was some speculation on how their children would look but, without the context, it is difficult to determine if the statement was racist, ignorant, or reflected concern about Harry and his children.

The biggest issue is that they raised this allegation knowing they wouldn't or couldn't respond and then left everyone in the royal family under a cloud of suspicion.
  #358  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:12 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
It was quite a contradictory interview.
First they said they didn't wish to leave but only to take a step back and become financially independent as others have done.

Then they were shocked to lose their paid security due to change in status.
Their status became the same as those others.
So why were they surprised??
There are two parts to the security issue:

1) Do they need it
2) Who is going to pay for it

Do they need it? Harry said that he asked if the risk level had changed, and he was told "No". Believe him or not ...As a celebrity, he needs security.

Who is going to pay for it? He said that he got told on short notice that security was going to be removed. (He had not signed the lucrative contracts with Spotify and Netflix at that point). I think this is where Harry feels let down by his father. Charles would know that Harry and his family still needed security. But he says his father cut off the money.
  #359  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:14 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
There is an article in the Times by Valentine Low titled "Harry and Meghan: Where Buckingham Palace disagrees with the duke and duchess". I am not subscriber, but someone has posted archive articles that could be read without a subscription. Is there one of this article that someone could link? I would love to read it.
They are not discovering a new planet there. The same points were discussed here. They mention how Meghan and Harry are not consistent on that (allegedly) racist conversation about Archie's skin colour, their mental health, argument with Catherine and Charles closing his bank.

The two latter things are more interesting, as the Times is showing a different version of the events re: bridesmaid dresses
Quote:
However, insiders tell a different story. One said the row happened when the bridesmaids’ dresses had to be altered a week before the wedding. Meghan told them when to come, but Kate wanted to come at a different time. She was told it would not be possible, and went round at the time that suited Meghan.
“Meghan was incredibly rude. The duchess cried and left.”
After William intervened to try to calm the situation down, the duchess took flowers to Meghan the next day in an attempt to make peace.
The source said: “Meghan slammed the door in her face.”
So it would seem that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Meghan was stressed with the wedding and situation with her father. Duchess of Cambridge was still early in the postpartum, emotional as well. But it seems that she tried to make the situation better.

And about the "Bank of Charles" (I do love this term )
Quote:
Charles, who previously bankrolled Harry’s office to the tune of something approaching £2.5 million a year, was said by a source to feel “let down” by Harry’s claim.
A source told the London Evening Standard: “The Prince of Wales went out of his way to make sure his son and daughter-in-law were financially supported.”
So it seems that yes, "recollections may vary", depending on the person. There is no question that Prince Charles is rich. But would he be able to buy them a $11M dollar mansion in Hollywood? I don't think so.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't notice somebody already posted the full article, wanted to share the more interesting bits.
  #360  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:22 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Re: the apparent contradictions between some of Meghans' account and Harry's. To me, this gives even more weight to them not telling lies because if you ask two people to recount the same event or conversation, they'll often sound contradictory despite being broadly the same gist.
In a basic questioning, during crime investigations for exemple, when two witnesses are contradictory regarding the same event , it never sounds good.
Just sayin'
__________________

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 II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021 Jacknch The Electronic Domain 1196 03-09-2021 01:48 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asian biography birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing coronation customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan history king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry speech st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:07 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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