The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[Queen Ester]

IMO, it isn't. But it's amusing to watch the media turn around on this after all of their "Funeral is the perfect time to heal the rift!", "Harry talked to this and that!", "It's up to the Queen to take steps towards reconciliation now". Suddenly, it's all "Harry goes back". They made a mountain out of a molehill.


Funeral is about loss. Healing is another matter. Separate things.

Did Meghan actually said that she forgives the Royal Family or just someone talking on her behalf?

Where do you get Harry is expecting anything financially from his father? He has his own money and deals. And he hasn’t taken a dime from his father in over a year it seems. So this narrative seems odd.

He spoke of what happened during the year they were suppose to be transitioning. They were in “review” yet were “cut” off at the same time. The whole thing was such a bizarre situation but it’s over

They making their own money and paid back what they were given as far as their UK debts like their home.

They were cut off because they were not working any more, would you expect your employer to pay you after you had resigned? I am sure if they had come back to work as senior royals, their allowance would have been reinstated.

 

[_Heather_]

I agree with you. But I am curious about why you think they wanted to do the interview before he died. They could have waited several months or better yet, not done it at all!

I'm not the poster you were replying to so I can't speak for that person. In my view, though, I would agree that they were absolutely desperate to get that interview out there before Philip died and it was no stretch to say that at the age of 99 absolutely no one believed he'd be dancing a jig a year or two, or even several months, from now.

As for why, well, even they could see how poorly it would be received if they aired all of that dirty laundry shortly after the death of the much respected and revered DoE. And, as Gayle King and Company have made clear, they believed it was something they had to do and they were taken aback by the backlash and were apparently mystified that everyone was focused on racism claims when they intended for everyone to be focused on, well, I'm not even really sure what.

By doing the interview and airing it when they did, they were able to avoid the backlash that would have come with "Attacking the Queen and the RF in the wake of the DoE's death" perception. They were able to say that no one knew he was going to die, they had no control over when it aired, etc. but had he died prior to the interview/airing then the entire thing would have had to be scrapped or their names/reputations wouldn't have had a chance of recovery. It's one thing to drag your family through the mud, throw them under the bus, and air your dirty laundry in public. It's another to attack your family while the family, the nation, and the world are grieving the loss of the longest serving consort in UK history.

 

[ACO]

Did Meghan actually said that she forgives the Royal Family or just someone talking on her behalf?

They were cut off because they were not working any more, would you expect your employer to pay you after you had resigned? I am sure if they had come back to work as senior royals, their allowance would have been reinstated.

I don't disagree with them being "cut off". I was more confused as people seemed offended they went out and got deals to make money. I heard many comments about how they needed to lay low that year. Well now we know they would have been in a bad way had they done that since no income was coming to them. So good for them. Win/win for all, I suppose.

And as for the comment with Meghan. It is a comment per the papers but they seem to be making stuff up quite a bit lately. Just today they were quoting someone who made it quite clear it was a lie.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1382667697415151623

So lets just keep that in mind with all these ready made quotes via anonymous sources and the like. Right now papers are trying to fill the space and sadly the funeral is giving them more reason to be over the top.

 

[Erin9]

Exactly. I’m pretty sure Charles came to hugely regret talking about his parents in the Dimbleby interview...and apparently Diana regretted the Bashir interview. Lessons could have been learned. Now maybe Harry did that deliberately to hurt his father and brother, much as he loves them....we’ll never know, and I won’t assume that. But, giving H the benefit of any doubt, it was still a terrible idea

Harry likes to talk about learning lessons from the past, but this interview was an excellent example that he didn’t.

I really can’t see this interview as anything but a deliberate desire to hurt people personally and the family business. And it went beyond Charles and William IMO. Meghan dragged Catherine in. They both dragged the entire family in with racism. There were complaints about the institution in general. And so on. Seemed very deliberate and calculated to me. And served no purpose but to hurt people and generate sympathy- and maybe money- for themselves.

I'm not the poster you were replying to so I can't speak for that person. In my view, though, I would agree that they were absolutely desperate to get that interview out there before Philip died and it was no stretch to say that at the age of 99 absolutely no one believed he'd be dancing a jig a year or two, or even several months, from now.

As for why, well, even they could see how poorly it would be received if they aired all of that dirty laundry shortly after the death of the much respected and revered DoE. And, as Gayle King and Company have made clear, they believed it was something they had to do and they were taken aback by the backlash and were apparently mystified that everyone was focused on racism claims when they intended for everyone to be focused on, well, I'm not even really sure what.

By doing the interview and airing it when they did, they were able to avoid the backlash that would have come with "Attacking the Queen and the RF in the wake of the DoE's death" perception. They were able to say that no one knew he was going to die, they had no control over when it aired, etc. but had he died prior to the interview/airing then the entire thing would have had to be scrapped or their names/reputations wouldn't have had a chance of recovery. It's one thing to drag your family through the mud, throw them under the bus, and air your dirty laundry in public. It's another to attack your family while the family, the nation, and the world are grieving the loss of the longest serving consort in UK history.

I tend to agree with that. Sadly. That seems incredibly cold to me.

I will say: I do not buy for one second that they were surprised at all by the focus on the racism remark. It’s a hot button issue. Meghan, in particular, knew EXACTLY how that remark would play for an American audience. Race is a 24/7 issue here. She absolutely knew what she was doing.

 

[Betsypaige]

Harry likes to talk about learning lessons from the past, but this interview was an excellent example that he didn’t.

I really can’t see this interview as anything but a deliberate desire to hurt people personally and the family business. And it went beyond Charles and William IMO. Meghan dragged Catherine in. They both dragged the entire family in with racism. There were complaints about the institution in general. And so on. Seemed very deliberate and calculated to me. And served no purpose but to hurt people and generate sympathy- and maybe money- for themselves.

I can’t disagree...though it does pain me to think this about H.

I’m going to try not to think about all that now...I know Harry is grieving...I’m going to hope for the best in terms of the family relationships going forward

 

[cathy50]

I wished Harry had someone to tell him to pull himself together, find him self a job,
a place to live he can pay&protect his family as good as possible.
no one forced them to live at LA in an expensive mansion.
they do not need 24/7 security or any once they lead a lifestyle adapted to their financial possibilities-JUST like everyone of us has to plan his/her life.
they are adults, choose to quit a job which prevented them all theier needs, now it's on them!
and by the way Harry should use his fortune to pay for their bills. if Meghan wants security for a two year old staying at home while a pandemic anyway!. she or Harry must pay for it! that's life. having children comes with responsibilities, it's their job and not Papa's, HM's or the british taxpayer's!
I wonder if ever they are thinking what their son one day will think when reading about his parent's mess&behaviour, I mean it's not like in our days when we could only rely on what an Auntie or grandpa told, it's the socialmedia and in their case the global media who "saves" all that nonsense.
the whole thing is ridiculous to any normal working person which most of us are and to any mature person. [...]
Maybe now again Harry will get money from DoE, so what?! more complaints, leaks and nonsense seems to be their"plan" instead if taking over responsibilities for soon two children and the situation they threw themselves in. If you cannot pay for one child (like they say, no security available, too expensive...) then why have another baby? [.....]
So, please Harry pull yourself together, work, pay your bills and keep quiet!

 

[Osipi]

I tend to agree with that. Sadly. That seems incredibly cold to me.

I will say: I do not buy for one second that they were surprised at all by the focus on the racism remark. It’s a hot button issue. Meghan, in particular, knew EXACTLY how that remark would play for an American audience. Race is a 24/7 issue here. She absolutely knew what she was doing.

Jumping on a "hot topic" with crocodile tears is a sure fire way for a celebrity to garner publicity and be in the limelight. This is what I think the main focus of attention of the entire "having their say" was all about. Sadly, though, it didn't reflect as badly on the BRF and the institution of the monarchy as it will stick like glue to them through the years ahead. They may have burnt their bridges behind them but once the flames are put out, those ashes will fly around them each and every time they attempt to move forward. They've put their own meaning to "kindness and compassion" by adding "when it looks good for us".

The downside? Celebrity is a fleeting thing. Changes faster than people change their underwear sometimes. The top dog on the celebrity list of today may be the celebrity filing for bankruptcy tomorrow. The Sussexes wanted their financial independence and got it. Totally. It's now up to them to sink or swim in all areas of their lives with it looking like both sides of the family are no longer of importance to their scheme of things. To me, their "you and me against the world" looks pretty flimsy from where I'm sitting.

Next order of business? Learn "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Everything comes with a price. I hope the bills that come due to them don't have an exorbitant price tag to it.

 

[_Heather_]

I will say: I do not buy for one second that they were surprised at all by the focus on the racism remark. It’s a hot button issue. Meghan, in particular, knew EXACTLY how that remark would play for an American audience. Race is a 24/7 issue here. She absolutely knew what she was doing.

I absolutely agree. As an American I can say with absolute certainty that right now race and racial divisions/interactions/perceptions are at the very forefront of the national conversation. You'd have to be extremely isolated and probably literally living under a rock not to know exactly how that would play out here and even then, I kind of think you'd know. She knew. Oprah knew. Gayle King knew. I'm not entirely certain whether Harry truly knew and understood. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But they did. I don't buy the whole "we're baffled why this is what everyone is talking about, we wanted them to talk about us and our interview, just not about this part of the interview" malarkey but I'm not at all surprised that this is the line that was handed out after it became clear that the interview did not garner them universal praise and adulation.

 

[Moran]

Harry likes to talk about learning lessons from the past, but this interview was an excellent example that he didn’t.

I really can’t see this interview as anything but a deliberate desire to hurt people personally and the family business. And it went beyond Charles and William IMO. Meghan dragged Catherine in. They both dragged the entire family in with racism. There were complaints about the institution in general. And so on. Seemed very deliberate and calculated to me. And served no purpose but to hurt people and generate sympathy- and maybe money- for themselves.





I tend to agree with that. Sadly. That seems incredibly cold to me.

I will say: I do not buy for one second that they were surprised at all by the focus on the racism remark. It’s a hot button issue. Meghan, in particular, knew EXACTLY how that remark would play for an American audience. Race is a 24/7 issue here. She absolutely knew what she was doing.

Which makes me doubt the whole "grief unites people as they realize what they have lost" narrative. Philip was dying and it wasn't a great surprise to anybody that a man of 99 died after a prolonged hospital stay. Sure, everyone is grieving but it isn't as if it Philip's death was so unexpected for any of them. Even if Harry and Meghan didn't know he was hospitalized at the time they gave the interview, Harry had plenty of time to talk to his family in the aftermath if he desired healing so much. But no, he talked to Gayle and left Omid and Janina's thinly veiled threats against his family unchallenged.


Healing requires two willing parties. I don't know about the RF but nothing I've seen of Harry this far speaks of such will on his part, IMO. As far as I can say, it's been just the wish of the press. Imagine the field they they would have had with such a reconciliation over the coffin, literally.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think the interview was a horrible idea. Both Harry and Meghan came off very badly imo.

But in Meghan's defense, her sister-in-law Kate was "dragged into it" because up until the Oprah interview, the story was that Meghan had reduced Kate to tears. This was a false narrative that was allowed to fester and grow for two years. Kensington Palace didn't correct it. Buckingham Palace didn't either. So the press has had a field day with " The bad duchess made the good duchess cry. See how nasty she is"?

So no. I don't fault Meghan one bit for speaking out and setting the record straight...

In fact, I would have informed the Palace hacks as soon as the false story got out that if THEY didn't issue a rebuttal, I would.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I wonder if ever they are thinking what their son one day will think when reading about his parent's mess&behaviour, I mean it's not like in our days when we could only rely on what an Auntie or grandpa told, it's the socialmedia and in their case the global media who "saves" all that nonsense.
the whole thing is ridiculous to any normal working person which most of us are and to any mature person. [...]

Sadly this is true. And while this may not be the right place to mention it but also everything they will find on their grandparents (and this case the same for William Kids as well) and all the stuff that been written and said. They will not only have Harry and Meghan interweb but also the whole "War of The wales" and The Diana Interview. They are gonna be in for a shock.


I imagine both William and Harry will have a long conversation with their kids someday when they are old enough to understand before they start growing the web.

 

[Hallo girl]

I think the interview was a horrible idea. Both Harry and Meghan came off very badly imo.

But in Meghan's defense, her sister-in-law Kate was "dragged into it" because up until the Oprah interview, the story was that Meghan had reduced Kate to tears. This was a false narrative that was allowed to fester and grow for two years. Kensington Palace didn't correct it. Buckingham Palace didn't either. So the press has had a field day with " The bad duchess made the good duchess cry. See how nasty she is"?

So no. I don't fault Meghan one bit for speaking out and setting the record straight...

In fact, I would have informed the Palace hacks as soon as the story got out that if THEY didn't issue a rebuttal, I would.

First of all I take your point if Meghan felt she had been bad mouthed she would want to be given the opportunity to give her side.

I would like to make 3 points, firstly they have taken newspapers to court before so why not about that story.
Secondly in the FF book, Omid claims there were no tears, it was just all a bit
frantic with kids etc etc..not a full quote but the general idea.
Thirdly When clearing her name why did she need to throw Kate under the bus, why not just say something like it was a stressful day I became upset , Kate sent me flowers and a note to make me feel better.

As a final point the palace cannot deny what is true or if they do not know what is true. Once they start to deny, they need to deny everything, our we all pick up on what is true

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I am not sure how Kate was "thrown under the bus" when Meghan made it a point to praise her grace by pointing out that she had apologized over the incident?

 

[Queen Ester]

I think the interview was a horrible idea. Both Harry and Meghan came off very badly imo.

But in Meghan's defense, her sister-in-law Kate was "dragged into it" because up until the Oprah interview, the story was that Meghan had reduced Kate to tears. This was a false narrative that was allowed to fester and grow for two years. Kensington Palace didn't correct it. Buckingham Palace didn't either. So the press has had a field day with " The bad duchess made the good duchess cry. See how nasty she is"?

So no. I don't fault Meghan one bit for speaking out and setting the record straight...

In fact, I would have informed the Palace hacks as soon as the false story got out that if THEY didn't issue a rebuttal, I would.

Then why did not she issue a rebuttal at the time when it was appropriate, and not two years later. Furthermore, we don't really know happened, there are stories, that when Catherine came to apologize, Meghan slammed the door in her face.

 

[Osipi]

First of all I take your point if Meghan felt she had been bad mouthed she would want to be given the opportunity to give her side.

I would like to make 3 points, firstly they have taken newspapers to court before so why not about that story.
Secondly in the FF book, Omid claims there were no tears, it was just all a bit
frantic with kids etc etc..not a full quote but the general idea.
Thirdly When clearing her name why did she need to throw Kate under the bus, why not just say something like it was a stressful day I became upset , Kate sent me flowers and a note to make me feel better.

As a final point the palace cannot deny what is true or if they do not know what is true. Once they start to deny, they need to deny everything, our we all pick up on what is true

I have a serious question here about a thought I've had.

Do you think it's possible that Meghan would still have wanted to tell "her side of things" had they been allowed to have the "half in and half out" way of doing things that was their original intention? Or did both Harry and Meghan feel they needed to "clear the air" because they didn't get things to go as they wanted them to go?

Seriously here. We tend to forget their original intention was to remain as senior working royals for the "Firm" representing the Queen while still pursuing the lifestyle they now have in California. The biggest thunderbolt was not being allowed to be "half in" with the perks that being working royal afforded them.

 

[Hallo girl]

I am not sure how Kate was "thrown under the bus" when Meghan made it a point to praise her grace by pointing out that she had apologized over the incident?

All I was meaning was that rather than closing everything down by a general it was a stressful day, she told the world that Kate made her cry, so we ended up with a she said they said story. So the story has kept going, sides are taken and we are still discussing it here and it happened 3 years ago.
We do not know Kates version of events.

 

[Heavs]

I think the interview was a horrible idea. Both Harry and Meghan came off very badly imo.

But in Meghan's defense, her sister-in-law Kate was "dragged into it" because up until the Oprah interview, the story was that Meghan had reduced Kate to tears. This was a false narrative that was allowed to fester and grow for two years. Kensington Palace didn't correct it. Buckingham Palace didn't either. So the press has had a field day with " The bad duchess made the good duchess cry. See how nasty she is"?

So no. I don't fault Meghan one bit for speaking out and setting the record straight...

In fact, I would have informed the Palace hacks as soon as the false story got out that if THEY didn't issue a rebuttal, I would.

And the journalist who wrote the initial story still stands behind it. And Omid Scobie who was being given info by Meghan claimed it was all entirely false. He then spent a lot of the book claiming that most of the other tabloid stories from that era DID happen but in a way that made Harry and Meghan innocent and everyone else in the wrong.

And so many other of their claims have been proven to be false or exaggerated that this is also on the suspicion list.

Meghan and Harry have issued so many rebuttals and lawsuits that it's now assumed that when they don't that the story is true. Even if it's awful against them. So many of their friends have gossiped to the media openly that every "source" is potentially considered to have been authorised by Meghan. The "Palace Hacks" have been over and over this ground for decades and know you can't deny everything, especially the trivial stuff. All the royals relationships are gossiped about as if nothing has changed from that one article years ago saying they hate each other. They just get on with their lives.

It was an inconsequential story of potentially two women having an argument and both getting upset in a very stressful week over flower girls outfits. There was no need to bring it up at all.

I am not sure how Kate was "thrown under the bus" when Meghan made it a point to praise her grace by pointing out that she had apologized over the incident?

Sure and if Kate "owned it and apologised" why did Meghan feel the need to bring it up? Why not simply say it was falsely reported and they sorted it out and apologised to each other. Kate was a couple of weeks post partum with a baby and both had a stressful wedding with the eyes of the world watching them to get through. It's not surprising if tempers flared but you don't need to act as if it was a huge cover up instead of a non event. Meghan apparently felt truly, horrifically, terrible during and after her pregnancy, maybe she should have made allowances for a new mother? Or even acknowledged that in the interview. There were plenty of other things she could have potentially debunked but she chose this one and made sure to bring it up in Jan 2020 in a totally un related email.

And then acted as if all Kate suffered was "rudeness" and not actual harassment for a decade. It's also worth noting that Meghan didn't really single out any men for criticism by name, just Kate.

I couldn't live with false stories hanging over my head without rebutting them, I understand Meghan and Harry's instinct to do that but every single member of the family has had to deal with just letting it go.

 

[Hallo girl]

I have a serious question here about a thought I've had.

Do you think it's possible that Meghan would still have wanted to tell "her side of things" had they been allowed to have the "half in and half out" way of doing things that was their original intention? Or did both Harry and Meghan feel they needed to "clear the air" because they didn't get things to go as they wanted them to go?

Seriously here. We tend to forget their original intention was to remain as senior working royals for the "Firm" representing the Queen while still pursuing the lifestyle they now have in California. The biggest thunderbolt was not being allowed to be "half in" with the perks that being working royal afforded them.

That is an interesting question, I am not sure,
What I do think is that they appear to be saying that they left because of the treatment they received, so a half in half out situation surely would not have changed that situation.
All the things they complained about had already happened so I am not sure what going public did to help the situation

Receiving money from the family, security also Harrys military titles seems to have been very important to them so if they had retained all them they might have had too much to lose. But once they were gone anyway, they had nothing to lose and remember Tom Bradbury hinted after the South Africa interview that they could do a blockbuster tell all interview. I saw that as a threat give us what we want or else. They didn't get what they wanted so they did the big interview

I wonder if the interview was payback for not giving them what they wanted.

 

[MARG]

Not really. More the reason s for it. I believe Meghan "threw Catherine under the bus" so to speak, because she was hurt. Nobody from the palaces had her back... And to be honest, it was like the final nail in the coffin for Meghan. She was hammered for making Catherine cry, yet with a word dropped here and there from Catherine, she could have squelched that rumour.

 

[Hallo girl]

Not really. More the reason s for it. I believe Meghan "threw Catherine under the bus" so to speak, because she was hurt. Nobody from the palaces had her back... And to be honest, it was like the final nail in the coffin for Meghan. She was hammered for making Catherine cry, yet with a word dropped here and there from Catherine, she could have squelched that rumour.

I might be wrong but I thought there was a general comment from the palace that rumours of problems between the two women were untrue. Not specifically denying the crying story but a general rebuttal of problems.

 

[Osipi]

That is an interesting question, I am not sure,
What I do think is that they appear to be saying that they left because of the treatment they received, so a half in half out situation surely would not have changed that situation.
All the things they complained about had already happened so I am not sure what going public did to help the situation

Receiving money from the family, security also Harrys military titles seems to have been very important to them so if they had retained all them they might have had too much to lose. But once they were gone anyway, they had nothing to lose and remember Tom Bradbury hinted after the South Africa interview that they could do a blockbuster tell all interview. I saw that as a threat give us what we want or else. They didn't get what they wanted so they did the big interview

I wonder if the interview was payback for not giving them what they wanted.

What baffles me most now is that if things were so bad and dire and horrible and Meghan was having so many problems including thoughts of suicide, why would she even begin to think of assenting to be half in working for the big, bad institution and living part time in the UK where the problems stemmed from in the first place. This is what doesn't make sense to me at all. Unless.... the half in was intended to "foot the bill" for their lifestyle they wanted?

Things just don't really add up to the way I believe Harry and Meghan want them to.

 

[Hallo girl]

What baffles me most now is that if things were so bad and dire and horrible and Meghan was having so many problems including thoughts of suicide, why would she even begin to think of assenting to be half in working for the big, bad institution and living part time in the UK where the problems stemmed from in the first place. This is what doesn't make sense to me at all. Unless.... the half in was intended to "foot the bill" for their lifestyle they wanted?

Things just don't really add up to the way I believe Harry and Meghan want them to.

These are excellent points, I think there is validity to what you say.
The half in was the money, security etc with a few appearances to promote themselves as royal, the out was doing what they wanted in the USA. Although they now claim they are only working with netflix for the money.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

So many of their friends have gossiped to the media openly that every "source" is potentially considered to have been authorised by Meghan.

You can say a lot of things about Meghan's friends and their willingness to talk to the media. Being afraid to put their names to their comments is not one of them. So respectfully, I think that's a very flawed conclusion to draw.

The "Palace Hacks" have been over and over this ground for decades and know you can't deny everything, especially the trivial stuff. All the royals relationships are gossiped about as if nothing has changed from that one article years ago saying they hate each other. They just get on with their lives.

It was an inconsequential story of potentially two women having an argument and both getting upset in a very stressful week over flower girls outfits. There was no need to bring it up at all.

But it clearly wasn't inconsequential to Meghan. It was clearly a story that had been very hurtful to her. Which makes the Firm's unwillingness to rebut it all the more puzzling.

(...) Meghan apparently felt truly, horrifically, terrible during and after her pregnancy, maybe she should have made allowances for a new mother? (...) It's also worth noting that Meghan didn't really single out any men for criticism by name, just Kate.

You say this as though Meghan was slamming Kate in the interview which begs the question: Because in the interview I watched, she was very careful not to let Kate come off as some "villain" in that story and also to say that she doesn't believe Kate has anything to do with it being misreported.

And then acted as if all Kate suffered was "rudeness" and not actual harassment for a decade.

That's in the eye of the beholder, methinks. To me – while I agree that Meghan could've used a more expressive word than rude – the intention with that statement was not to downplay Kate or anyone else's experience, but to stress that it isn't comparable to Meghan's experience because of the added element of racism. And she's not wrong about that.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News April 2021 -

I am not sure how Kate was "thrown under the bus" when Meghan made it a point to praise her grace by pointing out that she had apologized over the incident?

As far as I’m concerned, discussing it at all was out of line. That was a private issue between them. That the tabloids made an issue out of whatever it was that actually happened is no excuse in my mind. Private is private.

That said, since, according to Meghan, Meghan was the wronged party, I also think it’s unkind in general to announce to the world your sister in law made you cry. And then say- but it’s okay since she apologized and because I’m a wonderful person- I forgave her. What a great way to try and make yourself look really good. I did nothing wrong AND I’m forgiving. How classy of her. Only not. It was utterly tasteless IMO. (I seem to recall Meghan also making a point of telling Oprah that the pictures of her and Kate together seemingly friendly didn’t reflect reality. Or something along those lines. That was nice of her too.)

Also- I think you addressed this earlier- but this is still Meghan’s version of the story. This is not necessarily what actually happened. This is what Meghan SAID happened. No one else has confirmed this anywhere. And I’m not inclined to take Meghan’s word for it.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

(I seem to recall Meghan also making a point of telling Oprah that the pictures of her Kate together seemingly friendly didn’t reflect reality. Or something along those lines. That was nice of her too.)

Do you have a source for that? Because I've never heard of that before.

 

[Erin9]

I have a serious question here about a thought I've had.



Do you think it's possible that Meghan would still have wanted to tell "her side of things" had they been allowed to have the "half in and half out" way of doing things that was their original intention? Or did both Harry and Meghan feel they needed to "clear the air" because they didn't get things to go as they wanted them to go?



Seriously here. We tend to forget their original intention was to remain as senior working royals for the "Firm" representing the Queen while still pursuing the lifestyle they now have in California. The biggest thunderbolt was not being allowed to be "half in" with the perks that being working royal afforded them.

I have a strong feeling if they’d gotten what they wanted with their ill conceived half in half out plan, this interview would never have happened. Their passive aggressive statements last year made their anger crystal clear IMO. And evidently nothing changed in a year.

I think they were/are angry, bitter and lashing out. So they threw everything and the kitchen sink into the interview.

 

[Hallo girl]

Do you have a source for that? Because I've never heard of that before.

I am sure it is in the interview Oprah says something about the photographs of Meghan and kate together and Meghan responds with something like things aren't always what they seem.
Watch the interview again

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I have watched the interview and I don't recall any such comment about her and Kate specifically.

 

[Erin9]

What baffles me most now is that if things were so bad and dire and horrible and Meghan was having so many problems including thoughts of suicide, why would she even begin to think of assenting to be half in working for the big, bad institution and living part time in the UK where the problems stemmed from in the first place. This is what doesn't make sense to me at all. Unless.... the half in was intended to "foot the bill" for their lifestyle they wanted?



Things just don't really add up to the way I believe Harry and Meghan want them to.

Like much of their interview- not much of what they said makes sense when you sit down and actually think about it IMO. There are contradictions left, right and sideways.

True. If Meghan really hated everything so much- why the half in/out plan.

 

[Erin9]

I have watched the interview and I don't recall any such comment about her and Kate specifically.

There was something in that interview where pictures of Meghan and Catherine together were shown and Meghan said something like appearances were deceiving. I can’t remember exactly, but she was clearly saying: we’re not close.