The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[Heavs]

So what did Netflix paired them 100 million for?

The rights to air/own whatever content they come up with if they want it and hope it attracts a lot of new subscribers at $13.99 per month.

I think if they'd been handed $100m for their personal, private use they wouldn't be bitching about Bank of Dad being closed.

Dang... That DM article - for all the legitimate criticism about the DM's sensationalistic reporting and tactics - that's a pretty fair round-up of all the "truth" Harry & Meghan told us in that interview.

My personal bugbear on all this is once again the wedding story (I know, I know). So now Lambeth Palace has apparently confirmed that it was literally just a rehearsal not a marriage ceremony or even a "personalised vows" type non C of E ceremony with a blessing.

How the hell can you hang that up on your wall as a certificate or even just picture of the two of you with him? It just doesn't compute how you can turn that into a "our real marriage was three days before even without witnesses" story.

 

[Denville]

Don't quote me on this but I don't think the entire value of the contract was handed to Harry and Meghan in cash. Perhaps they've received what someone here has referred to "seed money", an advance to get started with to develop something that Netflix would be interested in? With the pandemic, it's also possible that because of it, they've not started actual production on anything yet. We just don't know anything other than they've signed a contract.

You'd think though that if they had any projects in mind, they wouldve used this interview to at least hint about them..
Perhaps they think that Netflix will hand them over a lot of money for a couple of projects which will not do that well, but will get Netflix a lot of publicity in the short term.. I think myself that Net has no intention of keeping them on long term...and I don't thitnk that they have any serious ideas... (Unless it is some kind of reality show in the future)....
Harry clearly was thinking that Charles would go on supporting him for life and any extra money he made would be jam on the cake...

 

[Prinsara]

My personal bugbear on all this is once again the wedding story (I know, I know). So now Lambeth Palace has apparently confirmed that it was literally just a rehearsal not a marriage ceremony or even a "personalised vows" type non C of E ceremony with a blessing.

How the hell can you hang that up on your wall as a certificate or even just picture of the two of you with him? It just doesn't compute how you can turn that into a "our real marriage was three days before even without witnesses" story.

I've never wanted to believe the people who seem convinced that Meghan is narcissistic, but Meghan now seems to be doing an awfully good job of convincing me that "real" is whatever she wants it to be.

For what it's worth, combine that with Harry's habit of reading and minding everything that's written about him, and you really do have a negative-reinforcement combo going.

 

[Denville]

I've never wanted to believe the people who seem convinced that Meghan is narcissistic, but Meghan now seems to be doing an awfully good job of convincing me that "real" is whatever she wants it to be.

If Narcisstic means talking a good deal of nonsense and making wild and inaccurate statements.. then she'd fit the bill....

 

[Muhler]

The rights to air/own whatever content they come up with if they want it and hope it attracts a lot of new subscribers at $13.99 per month.

I think if they'd been handed $100m for their personal, private use they wouldn't be bitching about Bank of Dad being closed.

Don't quote me on this but I don't think the entire value of the contract was handed to Harry and Meghan in cash. Perhaps they've received what someone here has referred to "seed money", an advance to get started with to develop something that Netflix would be interested in? With the pandemic, it's also possible that because of it, they've not started actual production on anything yet. We just don't know anything other than they've signed a contract.

I flatly refuse to believe Netflix paid them 100 million, or even pledged to pay 100 million.
What Netflix said is more along this line: "Here's a down payment for the rights to material you produce. If it's good, we will pay up to 100 million. If it really takes off, we will pay even more - to be negotiated.
If we can't use your material, we won't pay a dime. And we can pull the plug anytime we want."

Netflix or any other business is not going to hand out 100 million just because of H&M's pretty eyes.
On the contrary H&M may find it problematic to go somewhere else with video material.
If H&M can't come up with something that sells, Netflix may very well say: "Well, we have a few suggestions... - If you don't wanna do it, no money."

Netflix has seen that H&M can deliver a seller like the Oprah interview. They want something similar.
Now, what can possibly sell just as much as the interview? What topic could create just as high ratings, I wonder...

Hmmm, globalism? The environment? Racism? Well... Nah, not that much. How about some juicy insider stories about the BRF then?

If they refuse there are always plenty of reality shows out there that wouldn't mind having a real life, genuine Prince among the contestants. Robinson, Big Brother, Royals in the Jungle... You get the idea, right?

I think H&M are going to find out the hard way that there are some bad sharks out there.

 

[tommy100]

I doubt Netflix has got to where it has by handing $100million to anyone remotely famous with an idea.
As I see it the '$100million deal' was an upper figure for a range of content - of course H&M will be able to take a percentage as their pay for their work but most of the money would have been to fund production of the content - in effect "H&M productions" got up to $100million from Netflix to make content for it to stream, like all production companies it will take an amount as its fee. As others have said, if they were getting $100million dollars for themselves you can bet they wouldn't be moaning about Charles cutting them off - if anything the fact they are suggests maybe money is a bit of a concern for them.

 

[Erin9]

Dang... That DM article - for all the legitimate criticism about the DM's sensationalistic reporting and tactics - that's a pretty fair round-up of all the "truth" Harry & Meghan told us in that interview.

Agreed. I’m impressed. They did a very thorough breakdown of the interview and showed how much “truth” was in it. It was worth reading.

 

[Erin9]

There was absolutely no wisdom to be found in that email and all it proves is that its um... an email. Coming out with all guns blazing shows a serious lack of clear thinking and reminds me of something Abraham Lincoln said once upon a time. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

The Lincoln quote is one of my favorites - and IA-quite applicable to them now.

 

[Muhler]

And the DM has this up this morning;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html

Read it.
It's actually a pretty serious article.

Of course Daily Mail can produce real journalism if they want to.
This is just the beginning.
H&M basically declared war on the British press, especially the tabloids. Did they really expect there wouldn't be a counter-attack?

Oprah is being taken apart. (She earned good money on that interview, so I guess she don't care that much.) Even CBS is distancing itself from her: "Oprah is an entertainer and doesn't have to adhere to the same journalistic standard as news reporters."

Everything, as in everything at all, H&M says and not least those around H&M says will be dissected and fact checked.
And if there is even a hint of dirt on especially Meghan, it will be dug up.
The resources the British tabloids spends on this will come back several times over.
H&M are in for rough time.

Boris Johnson is probably giving thanks. So long as the focus of on H&M and a large segment of the public are rallying around the BRF (or perhaps rather QEII) there is little focus on the unpreparedness of Brexit and the consequences that has at present.
I don't know who advised H&M to go ahead with the Oprah interview, but they are IMO more stupid than wet clay and ought to be fired on the spot.
And I am unable to free myself from the thought that Oprah screwed H&M thoroughly and probably made them say more than they perhaps initially wanted to.

Oprah worked hard for her money, overcame prejudice both as a woman and as black as well as all the other obstacles she would have faced. She also came from a poor background. She has experienced hard racism right in her face.
How much genuine sympathy does she feel, deep down, for H&M I wonder?

Yeah, I'm a cynic.

 

[RandyDrx]

Agreed. I’m impressed. They did a very thorough breakdown of the interview and showed how much “truth” was in it. It was worth reading.

Yes, it shows that H&M aren't as smart and savvy as they thought they are, when their claims are easily debunked.

 

[tommy100]

Interesting that CBS' defence is Oprah isn't a journalist - fair point. But isn't her best friend and de-facto spokesperson Gayle King employed as a journalist? Or is she an entertainer too?

I'd love to know what Oprah really thinks of this, especially now the facts are so easy to find.

 

[Osipi]

At what point did this entire discussion cease to be discussion and turn to endlessly repetitious piling on?

I think both Harry and Meghan have given us plenty of material to have a discussion for quite a while to come yet. We're constantly finding different meanings in different statements and actually, this is the purpose and the intent of their interview. To bring attention to their issues and their "truths".

The Lincoln quote is one of my favorites - and IA-quite applicable to them now.

I'm actually reminded of that quote often because its ladonga's signature. I love it too.

 

[Denville]

Interesting that CBS' defence is Oprah isn't a journalist - fair point. But isn't her best friend and de-facto spokesperson Gayle King employed as a journalist? Or is she an entertainer too?

I'd love to know what Oprah really thinks of this, especially now the facts are so easy to find.

obviously Oprah doesn't care. She didn't get rich sticking to high journalistic standards....

 

[Estel]

I have a doubt. Say that Prince William becomes the King next, what would happen to Archie's title? Would he still become a prince?

 

[Sunnystar]

Read it.
It's actually a pretty serious article.

Of course Daily Mail can produce real journalism if they want to.
This is just the beginning.
H&M basically declared war on the British press, especially the tabloids. Did they really expect there wouldn't be a counter-attack?

Oprah is being taken apart. (She earned good money on that interview, so I guess she don't care that much.) Even CBS is distancing itself from her: "Oprah is an entertainer and doesn't have to adhere to the same journalistic standard as news reporters."

Everything, as in everything at all, H&M says and not least those around H&M says will be dissected and fact checked.
And if there is even a hint of dirt on especially Meghan, it will be dug up.
The resources the British tabloids spends on this will come back several times over.
H&M are in for rough time.

Boris Johnson is probably giving thanks. So long as the focus of on H&M and a large segment of the public are rallying around the BRF (or perhaps rather QEII) there is little focus on the unpreparedness of Brexit and the consequences that has at present.
I don't know who advised H&M to go ahead with the Oprah interview, but they are IMO more stupid than wet clay and ought to be fired on the spot.
And I am unable to free myself from the thought that Oprah screwed H&M thoroughly and probably made them say more than they perhaps initially wanted to.

Oprah worked hard for her money, overcame prejudice both as a woman and as black as well as all the other obstacles she would have faced. She also came from a poor background. She has experienced hard racism right in her face.
How much genuine sympathy does she feel, deep down, for H&M I wonder?

Yeah, I'm a cynic.

I'll take the cynicism one step further... If Oprah senses the tide turning on H&M, she's going to distance herself just like CBS is already doing with the "infotainment" excuse for why there was zero journalistic integrity in what was aired. She might even do that before the tide turns on H&M, if she's annoyed or upset that her interviewing skills are being painted in a poor light. "Infotainment" is Tom Cruise jumping up and down on your set sofa. This wasn't that and while Oprah knows she isn't doing hard-nosed journalistic interviewing like Mike Wallace I suspect she'd like to fill the Barbara Walters role and this wasn't anywhere close to that even.

 

[Heavs]

Interesting that CBS' defence is Oprah isn't a journalist - fair point. But isn't her best friend and de-facto spokesperson Gayle King employed as a journalist? Or is she an entertainer too?

I'd love to know what Oprah really thinks of this, especially now the facts are so easy to find.

I don't think Oprah cares a whit about the facts in this case or her reputation as an interviewer, and neither do many of her audience, otherwise she'd have made more of a show of pulling them up when they had completely different accounts of a couple of things so they could explain themselves or at least pretending to ask them hardball questions about their own mistakes and conduct.

She's was just the visual panto audience.

A lot of people have pointed out she was much less sympathetic seeming to Harry than Meghan so she might not be too impressed with a 36 year old complaining that Dad and the taxpayer aren't funding him anymore so he had to get a job etc.

I have a doubt. Say that Prince William becomes the King next, what would happen to Archie's title? Would he still become a prince?

No if Charles doesn't become King but William does then Archie would never be the grandson of a Monarch but only the nephew so he wouldn't become HRH Prince.

It's also worth pointing out again that the nephew of the Queen, David Armstrong-Jones who was born 5th in line wouldn't have received any title at all if his father had not been created Earl of Snowdon because children of Princesses don't get titles unless their father has or is granted one and the Queen did not issue LPs to change that for her sister or daughter. It's not just Archie that doesn't get one.

 

[Sunnystar]

I have a doubt. Say that Prince William becomes the King next, what would happen to Archie's title? Would he still become a prince?

If, for whatever reason, Charles were to pass away before the Queen and William were to succeed her instead, Archie would never become a Prince because he will never have been the grandson of the monarch in the male line.

 

[Osipi]

I have a doubt. Say that Prince William becomes the King next, what would happen to Archie's title? Would he still become a prince?

I don't believe he would. If the crown passes for some reason from QEII to William V, Archie would not ever be a grandson of a monarch. He'd go directly to being a nephew of a monarch (William).

 

[Estel]

I don't believe he would. If the crown passes for some reason from QEII to William V, Archie would not ever be a grandson of a monarch. He'd go directly to being a nephew of a monarch (William).

Is it possible that H & M are actually worried about this? And that's why they brought in the race issue where it does not really belong?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Meanwhile, Harry is the second of only two children of the direct heir, and he was expected to have a major role in a slimmed down monarchy. So why wouldn't his offspring be treated with the full courtesies that are possible? I'm not certain that M&H were upset about Archie not having the LP courtesy issued in order to receive the HRH/Prince at birth. My understanding from the interview is that Harry was told Archie would never receive the HRH/Prince title, not even when Charles becomes King.

Yes - quite clearly she is resentful that Archie will not have the same titles as his cousins, and I would too especially if the Royal Family Inc have an expectation of me being a full-time royal without the security or protections! Sounds like the Royal Family Inc want their cake and eat it too....

The Princess Royal is the second child of the reigning monarch, and is a full-time royal who undeniably plays a major role in the monarchy, given that she is its hardest-working royal according to some tallies of engagements.

Her children have never received any title at all, much less the same HRH Prince title as their cousins William and Harry.

The princess herself does not receive publicly-funded security outside of her official engagements.

The public was led to believe that Harry and Meghan didn't want Archie to have an HRH title. That was to save face because the reality was that he wasn't going to be an HRH at birth. The Queen wasn't going to take any action to make that happen.

The public was not led to believe that by the Palace, which informed at least one royal reporter that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex gave their blessing for their son to become an HRH Prince in the next reign.

They were led to believe it by the book Finding Freedom authored by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, which claimed that the Prince of Wales considered new future Letters Patent at the Sussexes' request.

See the quotations/links in the following post:

Prince Harry 'worried about day Charles would be King and burden on Archie' - Daily Star

In an explosive new book Finding Freedom authors Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie have claimed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decide to "forgo a title for their son, because they wanted him to be a private citizen."

They claim Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king.

[...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...]

The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."​

This seems to contradict what a "senior source" told Robert Jobson of the London Evening Standard in 2019:

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.​

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

 

[Heavs]

The Princess Royal is the second child of the reigning monarch, and is a full-time royal who undeniably plays a major role in the monarchy, given that she is its hardest-working royal according to some tallies of engagements.

Her children have never received any title at all, much less the same HRH Prince title as their cousins William and Harry.

The princess herself does not receive publicly-funded security outside of her official engagements.

Yes, I just edited my post to say that the Queen didn't change the LPs for her sister or daughter and the 5th in like David Armstrong-Jones used the courtesy title of the Earldom granted to his father. Otherwise he wouldn't have had any title what so ever, unlike Archie who is currently inline for HRH. They're welcome to use Dumbarton if they had wanted.

Peter Philips was the first grandchild and had no title at all at his parents request and to his own stated relief years later.

I struggle to think why Harry and Meghan even wanted him to have HRH. That was surprising. And I don't believe they were 100% sincere about the security issue because they know who has it and doesn't.

They were already talking about leaving, whether Canada, NZ, SA or even then LA. And they sure as hell wanted everything about him to be as private as possible (fair enough) and they've seen that being "the other HRHs" hasn't help Bea and Eugenie out - just made them "justified" targets of attack and derision. Nor has it given then security. If it's such a toxic "Firm" that you had to flee 5000 miles why do you want Archie connected with it?

Did they just want whatever William and Kate had? Or to market Prince Archie's bedtime stories for Netflix?

 

[Queen Ester]

I flatly refuse to believe Netflix paid them 100 million, or even pledged to pay 100 million.
What Netflix said is more along this line: "Here's a down payment for the rights to material you produce. If it's good, we will pay up to 100 million. If it really takes off, we will pay even more - to be negotiated.
If we can't use your material, we won't pay a dime. And we can pull the plug anytime we want."

Netflix or any other business is not going to hand out 100 million just because of H&M's pretty eyes.
On the contrary H&M may find it problematic to go somewhere else with video material.
If H&M can't come up with something that sells, Netflix may very well say: "Well, we have a few suggestions... - If you don't wanna do it, no money."

Netflix has seen that H&M can deliver a seller like the Oprah interview. They want something similar.
Now, what can possibly sell just as much as the interview? What topic could create just as high ratings, I wonder...

Hmmm, globalism? The environment? Racism? Well... Nah, not that much. How about some juicy insider stories about the BRF then?

If they refuse there are always plenty of reality shows out there that wouldn't mind having a real life, genuine Prince among the contestants. Robinson, Big Brother, Royals in the Jungle... You get the idea, right?

I think H&M are going to find out the hard way that there are some bad sharks out there.

But, Meghan should have known better about the sharks, she was supposed, to know all there is about Hollywood, did she really think that just having a Duchess title will open big doors for her?

The rights to air/own whatever content they come up with if they want it and hope it attracts a lot of new subscribers at $13.99 per month.

I think if they'd been handed $100m for their personal, private use they wouldn't be bitching about Bank of Dad being closed.



My personal bugbear on all this is once again the wedding story (I know, I know). So now Lambeth Palace has apparently confirmed that it was literally just a rehearsal not a marriage ceremony or even a "personalised vows" type non C of E ceremony with a blessing.

How the hell can you hang that up on your wall as a certificate or even just picture of the two of you with him? It just doesn't compute how you can turn that into a "our real marriage was three days before even without witnesses" story.

Meghan seems to live in a dreamland which is fine, but she leaves a lot of corpses along the way, in this case, the Archbishop, I can't imagine how embarrassing it was the COE to actually have to issue a statement.

 

[Mbruno]

Meghan seems to live in a dreamland which is fine, but she leaves a lot of corpses along the way, in this case, the Archbishop, I can't imagine how embarrassing it was the COE to actually have to issue a statement.

I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.

 

[Fem]

I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.

Look, it was definitely not a private wedding ceremony. A member of the royal family or not, Archbishop Justin Welby is not a stupid man, so he would refuse a request for such. Not only would it embarass the whole Church of England, it would end up in him in very deep well of disgrace and definitely losing his position as Archbishop of Canterbury. Church of England does not allow two wedding ceremonies. For anyone.

But of course Meghan can say anything, as the interview was "their truth" (which apparently doesn't have to be based on facts), and who cares if some white old man gets into world of troubles because of her lies?

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

The Princess Royal is the second child of the reigning monarch, and is a full-time royal who undeniably plays a major role in the monarchy, given that she is its hardest-working royal according to some tallies of engagements.

Her children have never received any title at all, much less the same HRH Prince title as their cousins William and Harry.

The princess herself does not receive publicly-funded security outside of her official engagements.




The public was not led to believe that by the Palace, which informed at least one royal reporter that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex gave their blessing for their son to become an HRH Prince in the next reign.

They were led to believe it by the book Finding Freedom authored by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, which claimed that the Prince of Wales considered new future Letters Patent at the Sussexes' request.

See the quotations/links in the following post:

Actually, it has been reported several times that the Queen was prepared to make Peter and Zara HRH and even Prince/ss of Great Britian and it was Princess Anne and her first husband who declined. There were reports she offered her oldest grandson an earldom on his wedding day and he refused.

Sounds like HM The Queen wanted equity amongst her children.

 

[AC21091968]

Just when Meghan was making complaint to Ofcom on Piers Morgan and criticising BBC for having three "middle-aged white men" on a panel discussing on the aftermath of Oprah's interview (as well as leading Ian Murray to resign as chief of Society of Editors), Boris Johnson has announced that the government is taking actions in protecting journalists from threats of violence and intimidation. The Prime Minister has mentioned along the lines of "freedom of speech", "free press" and "democracy"

Boris Johnson says 'cowardly' abuse of journalists must end as Govt publishes action plan
The Government has published its action plan to better protect journalists from threats of violence and intimidation, which includes every UK police force being given access to a designated journalist safety liaison officer.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/journalist-safety-action-plan-uk/

Andrea Jenkyns (Conservative MP for Morley and Outwood) has tweeted a Daily Mail article on the YouGov poll of Royal Family and criticised Harry & Meghan for attacking their family in public

Andrea Jenkyns MP @andreajenkyns
Never attack your family publicly! Especially when the head of it has given 70 years of her life to public service. #GodSavetheQueen [Flag of United Kingdom]
6:20 AM · Mar 13, 2021·Twitter for Android​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370454705072132100

 

[Heavs]

I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.

He isn't stupid and he is a man and he believes in God (he talks about his personal faith a lot) so I actually doubt he'd proclaim

In the presence of God, and before this congregation,

Harry and Megan have given their consent

and made their marriage vows to each other.

They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands

and by the giving and receiving of rings.

I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.

Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder.

twice and once "just pretend for the spectacle" that makes a mockery of the whole thing.

He also knows that conducting the Authorised Ceremony without witnesses or the chance to object even though it wasn't legally binding is a terrible idea for actual legal/confusion reasons. And would get him in to trouble.

The fact that there must be witnesses and the chance to object is designed to *prevent* talk of secret/illegal/invalid weddings.

Lambeth Palace could have confirmed the earlier statement by "sources" that it was "just a garden commitment ritual" ala the Meredith and Derek "post it wedding" mentioned a few days ago, they didn't have to say it was a rehearsal with a blessing but not being pronounced married.

Whilst I suppose he could be lying I think Meghan has more of a track record of "her truth" not necessarily being factual.

Again I don't understand why she brought it up (and neither did Harry) it does nothing but cause more conspiracy theories and create a potential issue where no one even knew there was one. Not to mention annoying the taxpayers and those who sincerely celebrated their joy in Windsor in spite of all the chaos.

 

[Gawin]

I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.

IMO it was for dramatic effect, to emphasize (for her American audience) that the Sussexes are just common, simple folk who don't care for all that pomp and circumstance. Never mind their $14.7 million mansion. And I agree, it definitely calls her other statements into question.

 

[Gawin]

He isn't stupid and he is a man and he believes in God (he talks about his personal faith a lot) so I actually doubt he'd proclaim



twice and once "just pretend for the spectacle" that makes a mockery of the whole thing.

He also knows that conducting the Authorised Ceremony without witnesses or the chance to object even though it wasn't legally binding is a terrible idea for actual legal/confusion reasons. And would get him in to trouble.

The fact that there must be witnesses and the chance to object is designed to *prevent* talk of secret/illegal/invalid weddings.

Lambeth Palace could have confirmed the earlier statement by "sources" that it was "just a garden commitment ritual" ala the Meredith and Derek "post it wedding" mentioned a few days ago, they didn't have to say it was a rehearsal with a blessing but not being pronounced married.

Whilst I suppose he could be lying I think Meghan has more of a track record of "her truth" not necessarily being factual.

Again I don't understand why she brought it up (and neither did Harry) it does nothing but cause more conspiracy theories and create a potential issue where no one even knew there was one. Not to mention annoying the taxpayers and those who sincerely celebrated their joy in Windsor in spite of all the chaos.

A quote from an article in today's issue of The Times:

"The royal household, No 10 and Lambeth Palace agreed that the best thing to do was run what is known to cricketers as a “dead bat” strategy, minimising their response so as not to fuel the furore. Johnson repeatedly declined to make any comment and ministers were told to do the same. Lambeth Palace refused to correct Meghan’s mistake about the fake wedding, leaving Team Sussex to clarify their error."

 

[KrissyM]

The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.