The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-and-family-news-and-events-3-march-april-2021-a-48372.html)

Jacknch 03-04-2021 05:50 PM

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

Commencing March 2021


This replaces the General News and Events threads.
Please be mindful of the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.

***

Jacknch 03-04-2021 05:55 PM

Additional Notice:

This thread replaces the previous General News & Events threads, which is now closed.

Members wishing to post their thoughts, comments and responses may do so in a constructive way and in a manner that promotes mature and thoughtful discussion. When posting, members are expected to act civilly, reasonably and responsibly both towards one another and towards the subject matter.

Members who do not comply with these requests will be warned and may be suspended.

The following subjects and types of posts are off-topic and unacceptable:
  • Unsubstantiated gossip, rumour, speculation, hearsay and innuendo
  • Accusations or inference of racism towards other members and the media
  • Off-topic remarks
  • Aggressive, sarcastic or disruptive tones
  • Agenda-driven posts or posts deemed to have intent to disrupt the thread
  • Bickering, arguing or back-and-forth discussions to the exclusion of others
  • Post that otherwise add nothing of merit, interest or benefit to the discussion

Any and all issues are to be directed to the moderating team via private message.

ACO 03-08-2021 01:32 PM

A lovely new picture of the Sussexes from their friend Misan

https://twitter.com/misanharriman/st...83674348265473

Mbruno 03-12-2021 05:53 AM

Quote:

Osipi


Meghan started out with claiming that a comment was made by "someone in the family" about what color of skin the Sussex child may be born with. She didn't even hear the person say it. It was relayed to her by Harry. They refused to name the person because "it could be damaging". What is more damaging is by alluding to something that someone said that may or may not be deemed "racist" actually ended up as a charge of racism not only on the royal family entirely but on the entire British monarchy. One person *may* have been responsible for a serious racist remark that sincerely was out of line but because *one* person made a remark, the blanket of the charge has been laid on a wider group of people and it's continuing to grow to a focus on racism in Great Britain. One spark of a comment without context lit a flame.

This makes me believe that the *purpose* of bring up the remark and deliberately saying they weren't naming names was to generate a pall of suspicion on *all* of them. We saw William being questioned. William should never have had to state publicly that "the royal family is not racist". Meghan threw out a seed in the hopes of planting something that would grow into sentiments of discord. She purposely, in my eyes, tried to bring a subject that is controversial and a very huge problem globally to the forefront by painting everyone with the same brush that *maybe* that one person making the remark should be painted with. That, to me, is opposite of "be kind".
I think it goes further than that. Meghan mentioned the alleged racist comment made by an unnamed member of the family without context or details, and then added a different context to it by implying that the comment fit into a broader pattern of racist behavior, which included the suggestion that Archie wouldn't be made a prince or get security because of the color of his skin.



To me, that shows malicious intent on Meghan's part, not only because the claims about the title and security are patently misleading (if not false), but also because, whatever was said privately to Harry when he and Meghan were starting to date (per Harry's own admission) and in an undisclosed context clearly has no obvious relation to whatever might have been discussed about Archie's future title and security arrangements when Meghan was pregnant. Meghan, with Oprah's help, made up then a fake nexus that does not clearly exist in a deliberate attempt to induce the audience to conclude that the Royal Family is racist.

Osipi 03-12-2021 06:02 AM

You're right, Mbruno. I didn't take it past the one remark that was made but it did devolve into a lot more going forward. The thing is that it was geared to an American audience who probably will never see the discrepancies in what Meghan and Harry presented as their "truth". Of course, for us here, its generated page after page after page of discussion. It's what we love to do and why we're here.

I'm going to admit something here and I think there are a whole lot of people out there that probably have thought along the same lines as I have. I *did* wonder what color skin the first child was going to have. Not in any way being racist but curious. Personally, I'd rather have Meghan's skin tone than Harry's. Harry's the kind where he just has to think of the sun and he burns. :biggrin:

I am also moving over a link posted in the now closed interview thread. It's a wonderful read and reflects how my thought processes worked too when Meghan was pregnant with Archie.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...s-skin-will-be

AC21091968 03-12-2021 06:29 AM

On International Women's Day (8th March), Meghan has written a letter to students at Robert Clack School in remembering her visit to the school last year and marking the 50th anniversary of Equal Pay Act. She thanked the kindness and memories the students gave for her visit.
Robert Clack School @RClackOfficial
We had a very special delivery this week. It has been lovely to share this letter and advice with the students and remember our International Women’s Day celebrations last year. #IWD2021 #iwd
4:20 AM · Mar 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/RClackOfficial/s...62100425478144

Picture of the letter

Somebody 03-12-2021 06:45 AM

I am sure the students are thrilled to receive this letter but wonder whether she realizes how 'small acts of compassion' (mentioned twice) don't erase 'big acts of heartlessness' (I looked up the antonym of compassion), for example internationally 'owning' your in-laws. So maybe start practicing what you preach?!

And nice plugging of Archewell...

Alisa 03-12-2021 07:01 AM

Of course she would never see it that way. She was the one who was wronged- told lay low, denied vital mental health care, and was not protected.

Nice message for the school though.

Somebody 03-12-2021 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380142)
Of course she would never see it that way. She was the one who was wronged- told lay low, denied vital mental health care, and was not protected.

Nice message for the school though.

In that case, from her perspective, she should probably practice Michelle Obama's saying 'when they go low, we go high' - instead of 'when they go low, we will go much lower'.

Clearly the queen is practicing the first with her statement, so at least there is one family member that they profess to admire they might imitate.

Alison H 03-12-2021 07:16 AM

Sharon Osbourne's now been forced to apologise, after she was accused of racism for saying that Piers Morgan had a right to express his opinion, and asking a talk show host who'd accused him of racism to give some specific examples to back those accusations up.


This is getting beyond silly. How is anything to be discussed in a rational way if people are forced to apologise every time they say anything?

Osipi 03-12-2021 07:23 AM

When someone is in the business of "making a difference" and helping other people to find help and solutions for issues they're experiencing, it didn't help the Sussex goal of promoting mental health by Meghan just elaborating on what she felt and what she was experiencing (which, btw, I take as valid). She was having issues getting help she felt she needed. She left it there. She didn't go anywhere near what she *did* do to solve her mental health issues. Do they still exist? Have they dissipated? Is she still suffering mentally because of what she experienced and is she talking to a professional at all?

She did a good job of throwing the blame on others for not listening and providing help when needed but there were no solutions mentioned at all. It all stopped after the accusations against others not doing anything for her. What did she then do for herself? What did Harry do? Was the move away from the "toxic environment" the cure or was it actually running away from the core issues? None of these answers were provided. We just were given the stone wall that Meghan perceived she ran into. Big, bad stone wall did it.

When someone is sitting on the pity pot, that pot gets awfully comfortable. ;)

Princess_Eleanor 03-12-2021 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380149)
When someone is in the business of "making a difference" and helping other people to find help and solutions for issues they're experiencing, it didn't help the Sussex goal of promoting mental health by Meghan just elaborating on what she felt and what she was experiencing (which, btw, I take as valid). She was having issues getting help she felt she needed. She left it there. She didn't go anywhere near what she *did* do to solve her mental health issues. Do they still exist? Have they dissipated? Is she still suffering mentally because of what she experienced and is she talking to a professional at all?

She did a good job of throwing the blame on others for not listening and providing help when needed but there were no solutions mentioned at all. It all stopped after the accusations against others not doing anything for her. What did she then do for herself? What did Harry do? Was the move away from the "toxic environment" the cure or was it actually running away from the core issues? None of these answers were provided. We just were given the stone wall that Meghan perceived she ran into. Big, bad stone wall did it.

When someone is sitting on the pity pot, that pot gets awfully comfortable. ;)


You're making a very good point there. In therapy, you are usually directed to move away from laying blame on others (no matter if valid or not) and towards what you can do.

I've thought before that the interview sends the message that mental health issues are solved by leaving the situation in which they first occurred - which is usually not true. You can leave the situation and that might help, but it doesn't mean that serious mental health issues are magically cured.

Heavs 03-12-2021 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess_Eleanor (Post 2380153)
You're making a very good point there. In therapy, you are usually directed to move away from laying blame on others (no matter if valid or not) and towards what you can do.

I've thought before that the interview sends the message that mental health issues are solved by leaving the situation in which they first occurred - which is usually not true. You can leave the situation and that might help, but it doesn't mean that serious mental health issues are magically cured.

It's called "doing a geographical". You change your environment but you still bring all your personal problems with you and soon the same problems arise if you aren't working on yourself which requires a lot of self examination that we haven't seen from them in public.

I think if leaving had solved everything then we wouldn't have had this interview. Or it would have been a more forward looking one with emphasis on their life now and how they plan to help. Except that probably wouldn't have gotten the ratings.

Even if they completely succeed in shutting down all criticism of them I don't think it will automatically make them happy, nor necessarily bring in the money to make the next stage of their lives a financial success.

Denville 03-12-2021 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess_Eleanor (Post 2380153)
You're making a very good point there. In therapy, you are usually directed to move away from laying blame on others (no matter if valid or not) and towards what you can do.

I've thought before that the interview sends the message that mental health issues are solved by leaving the situation in which they first occurred - which is usually not true. You can leave the situation and that might help, but it doesn't mean that serious mental health issues are magically cured.

And most people can't move 5000 miles away to a new life, in a new country, in comfort...with plenty of money to buffer them...

Osipi 03-12-2021 07:54 AM

I'm not going to even try to assess anyone's mental health status or deem what they should do or shouldn't do but all of this that's been aired in that interview being put forth as their "truth", I still do think that airing their negative truths is going to hurt and reflect on anything they propose to go into the future as incentives with Archewell.

How can people actively look at Archewell and the Sussexes as role models for mental health awareness, being kind and compassionate and championing diversity when their actions and words have gone against what they profess to believe in? How does coming out on international television and moaning that the Bank of Daddy has cut him off and they had to take the Netflix and Spotify contracts to stay afloat with what they perceived they needed put their production hopes in a good light? That paints a picture of whatever they produce for these contracts will be of a self serving nature rather than "making a difference".

In order to "give back", you actually have to have something first to give back from.

Denville 03-12-2021 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380163)
I'm not going to even try to assess anyone's mental health status or deem what they should do or shouldn't do but all of this that's been aired in that interview being put forth as their "truth", I still do think that airing their negative truths is going to hurt and reflect on anything they propose to go into the future as incentives with Archewell.

How can people actively look at Archewell and the Sussexes as role models for mental health awareness, being kind and compassionate and championing diversity when their actions and words have gone against what they profess to believe in? How does coming out on international television and moaning that the Bank of Daddy has cut him off and they had to take the Netflix and Spotify contracts to stay afloat with what they perceived they needed put their production hopes in a good light? That paints a picture of whatever they produce for these contracts will be of a self serving nature rather than "making a difference".

In order to "give back", you actually have to have something first to give back from.

IMO while Harry wanted to be free to make money, but truth to tell he has no idea how to do so, and when Dad cut off the money and the British and Canadian tax payers declined to fund his new life.. he was forced to do something.. but he'd rather have just escaped, sat around and done a bit of lecturing to people.. (I mean in terms of telling people to vote blah blah blah)... and lived off Daddy's money... even though he had left to gain financial independence or so he said.
Now they have the contract with Netflix but there's no sign of anything being produced, and I wonder if he (OR maybe Meg too) has the least idea what they will need to do to fulfil the deal...
I dont know what the deal is, but I presume if they don't come up with successful ideas and put them out, Netflix will pull the deal or not renew it and they will look ridiculous. It looks right now as if they have taken an advance but so far have done nothing to earn it...

Queen Ester 03-12-2021 08:39 AM

The telegraph
Oprah thinks that I ‘attacked’ Meghan? It’s time for me to speak my truth
Could it really be true that my column about the Duchess had been a factor in the Sussexes' decision to leave Britain?

MICHAEL DEACON
PARLIAMENTARY SKETCHWRITER
10 March 2021 • 7:00pm
Michael Deacon
During the interview, Oprah launched into a stern monologue about the iniquities of the British press
During the interview, Oprah launched into a stern monologue about the iniquities of the British press CREDIT: SUPPLIED BY DIGITAL/EROTEME

There were many startling moments during Oprah Winfrey’s programme with the Duchess of Sussex. For me, though, the most surprising aspect was this.

I was in it.

Admittedly, my very minor cameo hasn’t generated quite as much global attention as the rest of the programme’s contents. But to me, at any rate, it was an unexpected twist. About 40 minutes in, Oprah broke off briefly from the interview and launched into a stern monologue about the iniquities of the British press.

“When Meghan joined the Royal family in 2018,” intoned Oprah, “she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks.” Immediately, the screen flashed up a small selection of headlines from British newspapers – each presented as examples of the cruel and vindictive coverage that had plagued Meghan during her time in Britain and had left her with no option but to quit.

One headline in particular, however, caught my eye. Because it was the headline to a column I’d written myself.

For a moment, I sat there, wearing an expression not dissimilar to the one that Oprah herself was wearing for much of the interview. An expression of mute, astonished bewilderment, as if her guest had suddenly turned into a hedgehog.

Goodness, I murmured. Could it really be true that my column about poor Meghan had helped drive her out of Britain? What an awful thought.

On the whole, though, I decided that it was unlikely – for a fairly simple reason.

My column was published on December 19 last year, more than 11 months after Meghan announced she was stepping down as a senior royal. So unless Meghan has access to a time machine, I tend to suspect that my influence on her decision was, at most, negligible. Especially as, up to that point, I’d never written a single word against her.

Yet here was my column, being held up to the world as a brutal tirade that had helped make Meghan’s time in Britain unendurable. Perhaps Oprah and her team had been so blinded by horror at what I’d written, they hadn’t noticed the publication date. They certainly hadn’t shown the date on screen.

Even so, I’m not quite sure why they would have found the column horrifying. Because, as can easily be ascertained by reading it, it was a brief and innocuous piece on the age-old observation that America and Britain are two nations divided by a common language.

One reason that some British people had struggled to see eye-to-eye with Meghan, I’d suggested, was that we tend to shy away from emotional language. We’re a stiff, socially awkward bunch who communicate via understatement, irony and sarcasm.

Meghan, by contrast, grew up in California, where people love to gush and emote. They’re perpetually feeling “humbled”, “empowered”, “passionate”, “inspired”. Hence my column’s headline: “The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn’t speak our language.”

Mbruno 03-12-2021 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2380164)
IMO while Harry wanted to be free to make money, but truth to tell he has no idea how to do so, and when Dad cut off the money and the British and Canadian tax payers declined to fund his new life.. he was forced to do something.. but he'd rather have just escaped, sat around and done a bit of lecturing to people.. (I mean in terms of telling people to vote blah blah blah)... and lived off Daddy's money... even though he had left to gain financial independence or so he said.
Now they have the contract with Netflix but there's no sign of anything being produced, and I wonder if he (OR maybe Meg too) has the least idea what they will need to do to fulfil the deal...
I dont know what the deal is, but I presume if they don't come up with successful ideas and put them out, Netflix will pull the deal or not renew it and they will look ridiculous. It looks right now as if they have taken an advance but so far have done nothing to earn it...




If Harry's version of the story is true, he strikes me as someone completely naive and unprepared for an independent life. I mean, he left full-time royal work and moved to another country and didn't have a plan to provide for his family and pay for security? Did he genuinely believe that Prince Charles, or the British or Canadian taxpayers would continue to foot the bill while he lived a lavish private life in North America? And did he genuinely believe the half-in/half-out solution would work when there is no precedent of a member of the RF officially representing the Crown as a permanent resident in another Commonwealh country other than in the role of Governor or Governor General, which, for political reasons, is now impossible?



It may be the case of course that the version above is not true, that the Netflix and Spotify deals were not "accidental" as Harry says, and that they left the UK with a clear intention to becone truly financially independent (as they claimed BTW at the time and are now somewhat contradicting themselves). Either way, the Sussexes don't look good. If the latter, they are open to the accusation of being "greedy royals" who are taking advantage of their title for private gain/profit. If, on the other hand, the former (as described in my first paragraph) is true, they come across as entitled / spoiled or, in the best case scenario, as I said, naive and out of touch with the real world.

Somebody 03-12-2021 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Ester (Post 2380169)
The telegraph
Oprah thinks that I ‘attacked’ Meghan? It’s time for me to speak my truth
Could it really be true that my column about the Duchess had been a factor in the Sussexes' decision to leave Britain?
(...)

Even so, I’m not quite sure why they would have found the column horrifying. Because, as can easily be ascertained by reading it, it was a brief and innocuous piece on the age-old observation that America and Britain are two nations divided by a common language.

One reason that some British people had struggled to see eye-to-eye with Meghan, I’d suggested, was that we tend to shy away from emotional language. We’re a stiff, socially awkward bunch who communicate via understatement, irony and sarcasm.

Meghan, by contrast, grew up in California, where people love to gush and emote. They’re perpetually feeling “humbled”, “empowered”, “passionate”, “inspired”. Hence my column’s headline: “The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn’t speak our language.”

He conveniently included the name of his article; an interesting read on how language increases the divide.

Erin9 03-12-2021 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess_Eleanor (Post 2380153)
You're making a very good point there. In therapy, you are usually directed to move away from laying blame on others (no matter if valid or not) and towards what you can do.



I've thought before that the interview sends the message that mental health issues are solved by leaving the situation in which they first occurred - which is usually not true. You can leave the situation and that might help, but it doesn't mean that serious mental health issues are magically cured.



Meghan wasn’t really trying to shed a light on mental illness IMO. The point was to get sympathy and throw the monarchy under the bus. It’s one of the reasons I was annoyed that the White House commented on it.

I think Meghan and Harry are a walking advertisement for what you said about leaving the situation: that it doesn’t mean mental issues are magically cured. This interview, their friend being authorized to talk, the emails now leaking don’t happen when you’ve moved on and are in a good place. This is nasty and vindictive.

fabaunty 03-12-2021 08:48 AM

IMHO , Harry has already earned his Netflix fee during that farcical interview with James Cordon . When he stated that he was "way more comfortable with The Crown , than he was with newspaper stories about his wife or family .

He gave them priceless publicity . He did say that it was fictional, loosely based on the truth . However many people take a series like the Crown as truth . The damage was already being done to the image of the BRF before Oprahgate . Harry and Meghan have just compounded this .

Erin9 03-12-2021 09:08 AM

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380163)
I'm not going to even try to assess anyone's mental health status or deem what they should do or shouldn't do but all of this that's been aired in that interview being put forth as their "truth", I still do think that airing their negative truths is going to hurt and reflect on anything they propose to go into the future as incentives with Archewell.



How can people actively look at Archewell and the Sussexes as role models for mental health awareness, being kind and compassionate and championing diversity when their actions and words have gone against what they profess to believe in? How does coming out on international television and moaning that the Bank of Daddy has cut him off and they had to take the Netflix and Spotify contracts to stay afloat with what they perceived they needed put their production hopes in a good light? That paints a picture of whatever they produce for these contracts will be of a self serving nature rather than "making a difference".



In order to "give back", you actually have to have something first to give back from.



I would agree they’ve done serious damage to their brand with all this. It’s not kind or compassionate. And if they were getting- and listening to- good advice- this interview and the aftermath never would have happened.

I think they have another narrative problem: Meghan as a strong, independent woman. And my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with her mental health issues to be clear.

It’s that IMO strong independent women aren’t vindictive, nasty and making sympathy ploys while trashing everyone in their path.

A real one doesn’t need to get on TV and trash their in laws, the institution as a whole, make accusations without back up, discuss private matters publicly, etc.

They don’t need to make charges of racism based on a private conversation with a family they never heard and can’t even get basic details agreed on, supposedly correct a crying narrative with her sister in law, make up stories about the title issue for their kid, cry about everyone failing her, and basically turning herself into St Meghan.

They also don’t talk about having emails- which I now have to agree is exactly what some posters said it was: holding it over the BRF’s head.

You also don’t trash family/people/staff/an institution that you know will never respond publicly point by point.

I could go on. But Meghan is not IMO an example to emulate in terms of behavior for a woman. As far as I’m concerned, as a woman, this is embarrassing.

Denville 03-12-2021 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2380170)
If Harry's version of the story is true, he strikes me as someone completely naive and unprepared for an independent life. I mean,



It may be the case of course that the version above is not true, that the Netflix and Spotify deals were not "accidental" as Harry says, and that they left the UK with a clear intention to becone truly financially independent (as they claimed BTW at the time and are now somewhat contradicting themselves). l world.

Im inclined to think that it went something like this.. they both wanted out, but Harry had no real idea how to do it.. Meghan said that they would be able to make lots of money in the US.. so off they went to Canada first.. but Harry still had the royal mindset that "someone else would sort things out for him".. and that Dad and the British taxpayer or Can taxpayer would give them free security and an allowance.. as long as they liked.. When Covid struck and then the Canadians pulled the plug on security, they panicked and asked Dad for more money and by now Charles probably was fed up and reminded Harry that he had walked out..to make his own way in the world.
Then they found a rich "Friend" who lent them a house and they moved to LA... but they still had to find a home and did not have an adequate income.. for LA.. so they did the Netflix deal etc...
but so far they haven't produced anyting...

Heavs 03-12-2021 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2380164)
I wonder if he (OR maybe Meg too) has the least idea what they will need to do to fulfil the deal...
I dont know what the deal is, but I presume if they don't come up with successful ideas and put them out, Netflix will pull the deal or not renew it and they will look ridiculous. It looks right now as if they have taken an advance but so far have done nothing to earn it...

I presume they pitched a lot of potential ideas to Netflix otherwise they wouldn't have the deal in the first place. The press release was pretty vague.

But how those will translate into a successful documentary series or "event" films is another matter. At one point in envisioned a camera crew out and about with them as they did their charity visits and pseudo royal tours (one reason "half in half out" wouldn't work as they would have probably wanted to commercialise official duties) but I kind of doubt it now.

Netflix has plenty of celebrities showcasing their lifestyles, travelogues and social causes. Will theirs stand out beyond just being from Harry and Meghan? And is that enough to sustain the lifestyle they want?

US Royal Watcher 03-12-2021 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2380176)
Im inclined to think that it went something like this.. they both wanted out, but Harry had no real idea how to do it.. Meghan said that they would be able to make lots of money in the US.. so off they went to Canada first.. but Harry still had the royal mindset that "someone else would sort things out for him".. and that Dad and the British taxpayer or Can taxpayer would give them free security and an allowance.. as long as they liked.. When Covid struck and then the Canadians pulled the plug on security, they panicked and asked Dad for more money and by now Charles probably was fed up and reminded Harry that he had walked out..to make his own way in the world.
Then they found a rich "Friend" who lent them a house and they moved to LA... but they still had to find a home and did not have an adequate income.. for LA.. so they did the Netflix deal etc...
but so far they haven't produced anyting...

This is very plausible. I doubt they had any solid plans, but they probably considered the possibilities of a Netflix or a similar deal because Netflix has lucrative agreements with politicians, like the Obamas, and other celebrities. Other possibilities include the paid speaker circuit, becoming paid board members of nonprofits (not a lot of work), etc. They can also draw a salary from their charity, it would be limited but still would have given then a few hundred thousand a year.

Osipi 03-12-2021 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 2380178)
This is very plausible. I doubt they had any solid plans, but they probably considered the possibilities of a Netflix or a similar deal because Netflix has lucrative agreements with politicians, like the Obamas, and other celebrities. Other possibilities include the paid speaker circuit, becoming paid board members of nonprofits (not a lot of work), etc. They can also draw a salary from their charity, it would be limited but still would have given then a few hundred thousand a year.

Its also possible that what they envisioned would have become the perfect reality for them if they had been able to leave as working royals yet retained all the perks of being royal. It's like living at home with mom and dad yet working at a profession where all of your paycheck is free and clear to use as one wants to. No responsibility to provide for oneself.

I don't know anybody that would honestly go out and buy a residence where the Sussexes have unless they absolutely were sure that they could afford and maintain that residence going into the future. Perhaps the grand idea was formulated looking at the income Harry and Meghan had while they were working royals. Didn't they figure in that once they stopped working that the income would also disappear along with the security? Or even the possibility that that may even happen?

As they watch their bank accounts drain, are they going to face the reality that you can only have what you can afford? As I've said before, a ducal title may open doors but it's not going to pay the bills. There's no such thing as a free lunch in the real world or in these times, a free snack even. :biggrin:

Hallo girl 03-12-2021 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin9 (Post 2380172)
Meghan wasn’t really trying to shed a light on mental illness IMO. The point was to get sympathy and throw the monarchy under the bus. It’s one of the reasons I was annoyed that the White House commented on it.

I think Meghan and Harry are a walking advertisement for what you said about leaving the situation: that it doesn’t mean mental issues are magically cured. This interview, their friend being authorized to talk, the emails now leaking don’t happen when you’ve moved on and are in a good place. This is nasty and vindictive.


There has been speculation for some time in various media forums / press with regards the relationship between the 2 couples.
It varies between, one lot was jealous of the others popularity or one lot was jealous of the others position in the family. Nobody really knew if there was any truth in any of it. Last year at the abbey was the first sign, but it is perfectly clear now that the two women did not get on for whatever reason.
Unfortunately Meghan appears to still hold negative thoughts about the situation and despite her promotion of kindness and compassion it does not stretch to the Cambridges.

Will this have an effect on their brand of kindness and compassion which she clearly fails to demonstrate herself. According to Meghan , Kate sent flowers and a note but she does not appear to want to accept this , it was mentioned in the interview and now the e mails. After 3 years I find this an unhealthy obsession.

Moran 03-12-2021 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380182)
As they watch their bank accounts drain, are they going to face the reality that you can only have what you can afford? As I've said before, a ducal title may open doors but it's not going to pay the bills. There's no such thing as a free lunch in the real world or in these times, a free snack even. :biggrin:


To be fair, this far they've got their free snacks. It looks to me that they mistook it for free feasting for life.


I really don't get it. What are they playing at? They're ruining their "brand of compassion" for those who matter, aka the ones who might reconsider working with them because they can never be sure what Harry and Meghan will save and twist. They're ruining their mission of sharing by oversharing that they only started it because the Bank of Charles closed. They're ruining their bridges with the royal family because, for all the talks about the Queen extending an olive branch, the RF cannot afford to take them back the way they need - in the highly public, visible way they need to reaffirm their royalty and value to the monarchy. All the time, as people saw concessions and olive branches from the RF, I saw polite but cutting dismissal on a public level which is the one mattering for their brand. And I still think that's what happening. On a personal level, Harry and Archie, and perhaps even Meghan, MIGHT still be beloved members of the family and accepted back but they're detrimental to the monarchy and the RF had been steadily cutting them out of this part. William's comment illustrated it perfectly. Harry simply isn't this important, no matter how loud he shouts. William is goinng to talk to him at some point of the future, when he sees fit. Let them talk, we aren't disturbed at all...



What are they doing? I can only see this as another attempt to force the RF into giving them what they want, financially at least. But with every new disrespect, they're making it impossible for Charles and The Queen to do so because they'll be perceived as caving in.

US Royal Watcher 03-12-2021 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380182)
Its also possible that what they envisioned would have become the perfect reality for them if they had been able to leave as working royals yet retained all the perks of being royal. It's like living at home with mom and dad yet working at a profession where all of your paycheck is free and clear to use as one wants to. No responsibility to provide for oneself.

I don't know anybody that would honestly go out and buy a residence where the Sussexes have unless they absolutely were sure that they could afford and maintain that residence going into the future. Perhaps the grand idea was formulated looking at the income Harry and Meghan had while they were working royals. Didn't they figure in that once they stopped working that the income would also disappear along with the security? Or even the possibility that that may even happen?

As they watch their bank accounts drain, are they going to face the reality that you can only have what you can afford? As I've said before, a ducal title may open doors but it's not going to pay the bills. There's no such thing as a free lunch in the real world or in these times, a free snack even. :biggrin:

They bought the residence after they made the Netflix deal, so they had reason to think they could afford it. We don't know what their financial situation is right now. The stock market is soaring. They also could be wrapping up a Netflix production as we speak, although I heard about that by now. It also occurred to me that they are working with Oprah, who has a lot of production experience, to develop some program ideas. Although as I posted earlier, if they had been smart, they would have produced the interview for Netflix rather than give it to Harpo.

Denville 03-12-2021 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs (Post 2380177)
I presume they pitched a lot of potential ideas to Netflix otherwise they wouldn't have the deal in the first place. The press release was pretty vague.

But how those will translate into a successful documentary series or "event" films is another matter. At one point in envisioned a camera crew out and about with them as they did their charity visits and pseudo royal tours (one reason "half in half out" wouldn't work as they would have probably wanted to commercialise official duties) but I kind of doubt it now.

Netflix has plenty of celebrities showcasing their lifestyles, travelogues and social causes. Will theirs stand out beyond just being from Harry and Meghan? And is that enough to sustain the lifestyle they want?

I dont watch anything like that but does that mean that they might (when Covid fades away) have a camera crew following htem as they take A to school, do the odd charity engagement.. go skiing etc?? it doesnt sound all that interesting.. and Im surprised that they'd get money for that. I thought that they'd make programmes about issues or docu dramas or dramas written by professioinal writers and acted by pro actors...

andrew 03-12-2021 10:15 AM

.
 
A premonition from 3 years ago🤔

https://youtu.be/qCzAp5IhyL4

Alison H 03-12-2021 10:16 AM

I'm not sure where they're going to go from here. They've turned everything into a bit of a circus now. Are people going to want them to address conferences on serious subjects, knowing that the press are going to be hoping for a bit of sniping about the Royal Family rather than a speech about climate change or supporting disadvantaged children? OK, some organisations might welcome them as clickbait, but more serious ones probably won't.

US Royal Watcher 03-12-2021 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2380191)
I dont watch anything like that but does that mean that they might (when Covid fades away) have a camera crew following htem as they take A to school, do the odd charity engagement.. go skiing etc?? it doesnt sound all that interesting.. and Im surprised that they'd get money for that. I thought that they'd make programmes about issues or docu dramas or dramas written by professioinal writers and acted by pro actors...

Actually I didn't think of cameras following around, which might appeal to some. I thought they are expect to produce documentaries on the environment, health and wellness, landmines, etc.

Mbruno 03-12-2021 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 2380195)
Actually I didn't think of cameras following around, which might appeal to some. I thought they are expect to produce documentaries on the environment, health and wellness, landmines, etc.

They said they have no plans to produce a reality show about their daily lives ( like cameras following them around).

In addition to the documentaries you mentioned, they said they are interested in children programming, including animated movies.

Denville 03-12-2021 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 2380195)
Actually I didn't think of cameras following around, which might appeal to some. I thought they are expect to produce documentaries on the environment, health and wellness, landmines, etc.

I don't know as I don't watch most recent TV.. but honestly i cant' see loads of people watching stuff about the environment or health problems for long....
Its not exactly thrilling is it? The only interest would be that it is "Meghan and Harry" talking about the dangers of plastics or landmines or what have you..and I can't see that being a long lasting interest for tv watchers...

If they do charity tours, like "semi royals" there might be some draw in that, if they were in Africa.. but last time they did that, they ruined their good work by complaining about their own hard lives...
I just wonder what they are going to make programmes about. I thought that it would be some stuff about their charity work and perhaps documentaries on say the experiences of African Americans or immigrants in the US or the UK,,,

Sunnystar 03-12-2021 10:58 AM

I just can't see either of them coming up with anything interesting or worthwhile - that would require far more intelligence than either have displayed up to this point in time.

Denville 03-12-2021 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunnystar (Post 2380207)
I just can't see either of them coming up with anything interesting or worthwhile - that would require far more intelligence than either have displayed up to this point in time.

I am inclined to agree but presumably Netflix is taking a chance that for now, their names will sell programmes even if they are not up to much.. but IMO if they dont start to deliver, Netflix be asking for the money back or at least refusing to renew the deal...
and from what Har has said, it sounds as if he kind of blundered desperately into the deals out of fear that he'd run out of money.. so how much commitment has he got to the idea of working for a living or making some money...
Its as if he thinks that someone will help him out somehow, and give him money..

Alisa 03-12-2021 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380149)
When someone is in the business of "making a difference" and helping other people to find help and solutions for issues they're experiencing, it didn't help the Sussex goal of promoting mental health by Meghan just elaborating on what she felt and what she was experiencing (which, btw, I take as valid). She was having issues getting help she felt she needed. She left it there. She didn't go anywhere near what she *did* do to solve her mental health issues. Do they still exist? Have they dissipated? Is she still suffering mentally because of what she experienced and is she talking to a professional at all?

She did a good job of throwing the blame on others for not listening and providing help when needed but there were no solutions mentioned at all. It all stopped after the accusations against others not doing anything for her. What did she then do for herself? What did Harry do? Was the move away from the "toxic environment" the cure or was it actually running away from the core issues? None of these answers were provided. We just were given the stone wall that Meghan perceived she ran into. Big, bad stone wall did it.

When someone is sitting on the pity pot, that pot gets awfully comfortable. ;)

I agree to an extent that I would have asked alot more questions about her mental health- especially since she made a big deal about suicidal and not getting the help she needed at that time. I wanted to know how did she get help? Is she in therapy?..etc..etc.

I disagree about the spirit of Archewell being at odds with the couple's. I don't believe they're bad people with no good intentions and as such cannot have a philanthropic foundation.
I believe they felt terribly disappointed and hurt at the treatment they received being senior members of the royal family. They never threw anyone under the bus- they simply explained how they felt and their version of the events- their "truths".

Osipi 03-12-2021 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2380209)
Its as if he thinks that someone will help him out somehow, and give him money..

I don't see that happening at all. If things did get really dire and everything falls apart for the Sussexes, I can see Charles stepping in but with very stringent conditions such as returning to the UK and living relatively like Andrew is at Frogmore Cottage. Stay out of sight and out of the public eye and I'll provide you with the necessities kind of thing. Anything related to the monarchy would be totally out for the couple.

Somehow though, I don't see Harry and Meghan meekly accepting those kind of terms at all. Harry may want to but I don't think Meghan would.

Let's just hope that this couple does go on to be self sustainable and make their own way in the world nicely and raise their family happily in California with no further mud slinging about the way things were. They've done enough in that vein.

Alisa 03-12-2021 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunnystar (Post 2380207)
I just can't see either of them coming up with anything interesting or worthwhile - that would require far more intelligence than either have displayed up to this point in time.

On the contrary, Meghan is quite intelligent and could create and/or produce documentaries or docuseries on a wide variety of topics from women's rights (she's been advocating since she was a pre-teen), homelessness, blindness...etc. Harry can capitalize off his veteran and combat experience by doing similar things on war, combat, veterans...and that is just the beginning!

Estel 03-12-2021 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380210)
I agree to an extent that I would have asked alot more questions about her mental health- especially since she made a big deal about suicidal and not getting the help she needed at that time. I wanted to know how did she get help? Is she in therapy?..etc..etc.

I disagree about the spirit of Archewell being at odds with the couple's. I don't believe they're bad people with no good intentions and as such cannot have a philanthropic foundation.
I believe they felt terribly disappointed and hurt at the treatment they received being senior members of the royal family. They never threw anyone under the bus- they simply explained how they felt and their version of the events- their "truths".

They've thrown the entire family under the bus with the skin tone comment. Firstly, if they knew it would be very damaging, why bring it up at all? Now when they have neither given the context nor named anyone, the public would look at everyone with suspicion, except for Queen and Prince Philip. Harry said that he did not want anyone to suspect the Queen or Prince Philip, does that mean it's okay for them to suspect his father and brother even though they might not have been the ones who said it?

Even if I accept for a second that they didn't throw anyone under the bus with the skin tone comment, she DEFINITELY did throw Kate under the bus well knowing that she wouldn't respond. Is it really that important to her? It is SO petty. So kindergarten.

Denville 03-12-2021 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380211)
I don't see that happening at all. If things did get really dire and everything falls apart for the Sussexes, I can see Charles stepping in but with very stringent conditions such as returning to the UK and living relatively like Andrew is at Frogmore Cottage. Stay out of sight and out of the public eye and I'll provide you with the necessities kind of thing. Anything related to the monarchy would be totally out for the couple.

Somehow though, I don't see Harry and Meghan meekly accepting those kind of terms at all. Harry may want to but I don't think Meghan would.

Let's just hope that this couple does go on to be self sustainable and make their own way in the world nicely and raise their family happily in California with no further mud slinging about the way things were. They've done enough in that vein.

but clearly Harry did think that Dad would keep on coughing up.. and it was only when he didn't that he, Harry, signed the netflix deal. so to me that doesn't seem to say that Harry is fully committed to the deal and eager to turn in ideas to make money from it and to go on with more deals in the same vein. I think that if things do go pear shaped Charles will offer help but in terms of yes something like coming back ot the UK and living quietly on an allowance...

Erin9 03-12-2021 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2380183)
There has been speculation for some time in various media forums / press with regards the relationship between the 2 couples.

It varies between, one lot was jealous of the others popularity or one lot was jealous of the others position in the family. Nobody really knew if there was any truth in any of it. Last year at the abbey was the first sign, but it is perfectly clear now that the two women did not get on for whatever reason.

Unfortunately Meghan appears to still hold negative thoughts about the situation and despite her promotion of kindness and compassion it does not stretch to the Cambridges.



Will this have an effect on their brand of kindness and compassion which she clearly fails to demonstrate herself. According to Meghan , Kate sent flowers and a note but she does not appear to want to accept this , it was mentioned in the interview and now the e mails. After 3 years I find this an unhealthy obsession.



When I read the email yesterday that the Sussexes wanted released....I wondered what the value add was supposed to be.

IA- it makes Meghan look obsessed on the subject. I mean- she’s emailing staff about an article from years ago? Move on. What an effective use of time. (While this doesn’t come across as bullying, it says something about what working for her must have been like. Not good IMO.)

She comes across as obsessive about her image. And IMO it really looks like she just wants to make Catherine look bad- despite Catherine’s- in Meghan’s own words- kind overtures.

I would agree, it certainly does further damage to the kindness and compassion brand. She isn’t showing it.

Alisa 03-12-2021 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estel (Post 2380219)
They've thrown the entire family under the bus with the skin tone comment. Firstly, if they knew it would be very damaging, why bring it up at all? Now when they have neither given the context nor named anyone, the public would look at everyone with suspicion, except for Queen and Prince Philip. Harry said that he did not want anyone to suspect the Queen or Prince Philip, does that mean it's okay for them to suspect his father and brother even though they might not have been the ones who said it?

Even if I accept for a second that they didn't throw anyone under the bus with the skin tone comment, she DEFINITELY did throw Kate under the bus well knowing that she wouldn't respond. Is it really that important to her? It is SO petty. So kindergarten.

The skin tone comment was reportedly said by *one individual*. Only had that person been named could one make an argument that the particular individual was thrown under the bus- but no name was given. On the other hand, if such a racist comment with bad intentions that individual deserved to be thrown under the bus.

Kate was definitely not thrown under the bus. Really? Her name came up as an example of the powers that be failing to correct a story and perpetuating a story that made Meghan out to be villain. If anything Meghan showed how genuine, kind, and a what a real class act Kate is by mentioning how she apologized and sent her flowers after incident.

Estel 03-12-2021 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380222)
The skin tone comment was reportedly said by *one individual*. Only had that person been named could one make an argument that the particular individual was thrown under the bus- but no name was given. On the other hand, if such a racist comment with bad intentions that individual deserved to be thrown under the bus.

Kate was definitely not thrown under the bus. Really? Her name came up as an example of the powers that be failing to correct a story and perpetuating a story that made Meghan out to be villain. If anything Meghan showed how genuine, kind, and a what a real class act Kate is by mentioning how she apologized and sent her flowers after incident.

That one person could have been anyone apart from Queen and Prince Philip. So yes, by bringing it up and not naming them, the entire family has been thrown under the bus because of an individual's comment, racist or not.

Meghan didn't have to bring it up at all coz it was long forgotten. N Kate's name didn't come up as an example, it was well planned. Mails have been leaked regarding that, what's the obsession? N even now people swear by the fact that Kate was the one who cried because of Meghan's behaviour towards her staff, and I believe that. How do we know that there couldn't have been another incident where Kate did cry? So, she did throw Kate under the bus.

US Royal Watcher 03-12-2021 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380222)
The skin tone comment was reportedly said by *one individual*. Only had that person been named could one make an argument that the particular individual was thrown under the bus- but no name was given. On the other hand, if such a racist comment with bad intentions that individual deserved to be thrown under the bus.

Kate was definitely not thrown under the bus. Really? Her name came up as an example of the powers that be failing to correct a story and perpetuating a story that made Meghan out to be villain. If anything Meghan showed how genuine, kind, and a what a real class act Kate is by mentioning how she apologized and sent her flowers after incident.

With respect to the comments about the way a child would look, I think we only have to listen to the question to Prince William about whether the royal family is racist. This would be similar to a situation in which there is a public claim that someone in your family said something racist, but they wouldn't give a name. You, along with everyone else in your family, would be suspected. Moreover, you admit that it would make a difference if the comment was made with bad intentions, but we don't know whether it was because they refused to provide the context.

Regarding the Meghan made Kate cry story, Meghan could have just said it wasn't true but she insisted on trying to make Catherine look bad. Perhaps that is why the media office didn't want to respond. Actually, I really doubt Meghan's version of events. If Kate made her cry, why wasn't that revealed in Finding Freedom? Apparently, if Finding Freedom, they were more concerned about who leaked the story. Calling it a "leak" implies that the original story was accurate. If the story hadn't been true, why didn't Finding Freedom explain that they concerned about who was spreading false stories about Meghan.

QueenMathilde 03-12-2021 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estel (Post 2380219)
They've thrown the entire family under the bus with the skin tone comment. Firstly, if they knew it would be very damaging, why bring it up at all? Now when they have neither given the context nor named anyone, the public would look at everyone with suspicion, except for Queen and Prince Philip. Harry said that he did not want anyone to suspect the Queen or Prince Philip, does that mean it's okay for them to suspect his father and brother even though they might not have been the ones who said it?

Even if I accept for a second that they didn't throw anyone under the bus with the skin tone comment, she DEFINITELY did throw Kate under the bus well knowing that she wouldn't respond. Is it really that important to her? It is SO petty. So kindergarten.


I think they threw everyone under the bus.

SadieKelly 03-12-2021 12:37 PM

The Queen has had it right for all these years: do whatever possible to keep up the mystery. Letting people see behind the royal curtain chips away at the fascination. It's never more true than today. It takes very little to undermine that mystique, with social media and round the clock blogging that dissects every move. H & M may remember this interview and their behavior afterwards as the moment that they became celebrities and not royalty. Which is fine, if that's what they want. I'm not sure they do.

If they want to make money, and lots of it, it's time to bring back the Tig and go full California. Use Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop as a model. Yes, Gwyneth gets roasted for it and the site has many ridiculous elements, but it's been an enormous success and continues to expand into new areas. Help the individual, not the world. That's going to pay for their house.

Estel 03-12-2021 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadieKelly (Post 2380232)
The Queen has had it right for all these years: do whatever possible to keep up the mystery. Letting people see behind the royal curtain chips away at the fascination. It's never more true than today. It takes very little to undermine that mystique, with social media and round the clock blogging that dissects every move. H & M may remember this interview and their behavior afterwards as the moment that they became celebrities and not royalty. Which is fine, if that's what they want. I'm not sure they do.

I agree. But on the other hand, if they talk anymore than this, nobody would give them the time of the day. They would eventually get bored, and ask them to give it up and move on already.

Queen Ester 03-12-2021 12:51 PM

Quote:

The skin tone comment was reportedly said by *one individual*. Only had that person been named could one make an argument that the particular individual was thrown under the bus- but no name was given. On the other hand, if such a racist comment with bad intentions that individual deserved to be thrown under the bus.
We don't even know what was said, maybe it was something completely innocent, such as " do you think your child will look like you or Meghan", so until we have a direct quote from that conversation, it is impossible to judge, that' why I think Harry should own up and name the person and say exactly what was said and in what context, otherwise it's very unfair to the RF

Kataryn 03-12-2021 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2380164)
Now they have the contract with Netflix but there's no sign of anything being produced, and I wonder if he (OR maybe Meg too) has the least idea what they will need to do to fulfil the deal...
I dont know what the deal is, but I presume if they don't come up with successful ideas and put them out, Netflix will pull the deal or not renew it and they will look ridiculous. It looks right now as if they have taken an advance but so far have done nothing to earn it...


But we don't know what they are actually doing. They didn't talk about it and it's not usus to talk about projects before they are at a stage to be presented. netflix' managers are not known to buy the cat in the sack (as we say in Germany), even if the cat allegedly wears a little coronet. I can imagine that they have ideas and plans and are working on it now. We'll see.


What can be critizised is what they said in the interview and that is enough for me to think they are hypocrites when they talk about compassion and bash Harry's family so much. They might still have a talent for the production of TV documentaries and might be able to bring positive things in. But I hate what they have done while preaching compassion and forgiveness. That is something that has actually happened and the whole world could watch. OTOH what the media has done is awful as well and could have made them go away. Still, talking like that on the TV screen is spiteful and not compassionate!

Alisa 03-12-2021 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estel (Post 2380225)
That one person could have been anyone apart from Queen and Prince Philip. So yes, by bringing it up and not naming them, the entire family has been thrown under the bus because of an individual's comment, racist or not.

Meghan didn't have to bring it up at all coz it was long forgotten. N Kate's name didn't come up as an example, it was well planned. Mails have been leaked regarding that, what's the obsession? N even now people swear by the fact that Kate was the one who cried because of Meghan's behaviour towards her staff, and I believe that. How do we know that there couldn't have been another incident where Kate did cry? So, she did throw Kate under the bus.

Had Meghan give multiple instances of various family members saying offensive and racists things then yes perhaps. However she gave just one incident of a one individual making such a statement. That is definitely not throwing the family under the bus.

Regarding the Kate incident it has been the one longstanding story that refuses to go away. People believe allegations about staff abuse because of that story. The reality is that Meghan portrayed Kate in a flattering way as someone who was kind and humble- someone who apogized when they were wrong and even gave Meghan flowers. Meghan said nothing bad about Kate.
The fact that you would believe Meghan made Kate cry despite the leaked emails that state otherwise and despite the fact that Meghan clarified that it was just the opposite just about says it all.

Alisa 03-12-2021 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Ester (Post 2380238)
We don't even know what was said, maybe it was something completely innocent, such as " do you think your child will look like you or Meghan", so until we have a direct quote from that conversation, it is impossible to judge, that' why I think Harry should own up and name the person and say exactly what was said and in what context, otherwise it's very unfair to the RF

It was quite clear from the interview that whoever said it- said it a malicious and racist way. Why else would Harry say that it would be "damaging " to explain more and reveal the person's name?

Hallo girl 03-12-2021 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380246)
Had Meghan give multiple instances of various family members saying offensive and racists things then yes perhaps. However she gave just one incident of a one individual making such a statement. That is definitely not throwing the family under the bus.

Regarding the Kate incident it has been the one longstanding story that refuses to go away. People believe allegations about staff abuse because of that story. The reality is that Meghan portrayed Kate in a flattering way as someone who was kind and humble- someone who apogized when they were wrong and even gave Meghan flowers. Meghan said nothing bad about Kate.
The fact that you would believe Meghan made Kate cry despite the leaked emails that state otherwise and despite the fact that Meghan clarified that it was just the opposite just about says it all.

Why is Meghan keeping it going if Kate sent flowers and apologised, why is it not forgotten.
Why did They not raise the other stories they claimed were wrong , Tiara gate as an example.

Alisa 03-12-2021 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 2380226)
With respect to the comments about the way a child would look, I think we only have to listen to the question to Prince William about whether the royal family is racist. This would be similar to a situation in which there is a public claim that someone in your family said something racist, but they wouldn't give a name. You, along with everyone else in your family, would be suspected. Moreover, you admit that it would make a difference if the comment was made with bad intentions, but we don't know whether it was because they refused to provide the context.

Regarding the Meghan made Kate cry story, Meghan could have just said it wasn't true but she insisted on trying to make Catherine look bad. Perhaps that is why the media office didn't want to respond. Actually, I really doubt Meghan's version of events. If Kate made her cry, why wasn't that revealed in Finding Freedom? Apparently, if Finding Freedom, they were more concerned about who leaked the story. Calling it a "leak" implies that the original story was accurate. If the story hadn't been true, why didn't Finding Freedom explain that they concerned about who was spreading false stories about Meghan.

I disagree. The couple made it clear that only one individual made such comment- they never passed judgment on the whole family. Moreover, any honest fair person would admit that the actions of one individual doesn't speak for the actions of many.

Let me play devil's advocate- imagine if Meghan simply said "it wasn't true"- no one would believe. She gave more details and many on this forum don't believe her- how much more so if she was vague. I never read Finding Freedom so I cannot comment on it- I can only comment om what I have seen and heard come out of Meghan's mouth via the interview.

Excalibur 03-12-2021 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380246)
Had Meghan give multiple instances of various family members saying offensive and racists things then yes perhaps. However she gave just one incident of a one individual making such a statement. That is definitely not throwing the family under the bus.

Regarding the Kate incident it has been the one longstanding story that refuses to go away. People believe allegations about staff abuse because of that story. The reality is that Meghan portrayed Kate in a flattering way as someone who was kind and humble- someone who apogized when they were wrong and even gave Meghan flowers. Meghan said nothing bad about Kate.
The fact that you would believe Meghan made Kate cry despite the leaked emails that state otherwise and despite the fact that Meghan clarified that it was just the opposite just about says it all.

One vague reference to one comment casts a suspecting shadow over each member of the family: Was it him? Was it her? All would be suspected, none would be excluded. So yes, the whole family was thrown under the bus.

Had the Kate incident been truly settled, with Kate apologizing, etc., then the way to address Oprah's question about it would have been to say, "Kate and I worked all that out, we're good. Next question." Instead she felt compelled to point out that Kate was supposedly completely at fault. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Then there was the mention of "Waity Katie" and the subtle dig at Kate's work experience prior to the wedding. Meghan had to make sure we knew that she had worked a job since she was 13 years old. Contrast that to the notion that many still have that Kate did not have a "proper job" before she married William.

Meghan took several opportunities to disparage Kate during the interview. If you didn't catch them, I would suggest you take off the blinders.

Osipi 03-12-2021 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380246)
Had Meghan give multiple instances of various family members saying offensive and racists things then yes perhaps. However she gave just one incident of a one individual making such a statement. That is definitely not throwing the family under the bus.

Alluding that the it could have been any one of the members of the family, outside of the Queen and Philip, most definitely is lining them all up with the wheels of that proverbial bus.

Just as if someone came out and said that "someone on The Royal Forums made this remark and its horrible", it would put each and every one of us under suspicion of having said it because we're all saying things on here. If it was something said three years ago, we'd be combing the archives to find out who the guilty party is. ;)

Erin9 03-12-2021 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2380248)
Why is Meghan keeping it going if Kate sent flowers and apologised, why is it not forgotten.

Why did They not raise the other stories they claimed were wrong , Tiara gate as an example.



I’d forgotten that.....somehow. Lol That does lend credence IMO to the idea that Meghan wants to make look Catherine look bad- while still trying to make herself (Meghan) look good while doing so. So she folds in the apology and flowers and how all is forgiven...

HighGoalHighDreams 03-12-2021 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380252)
I disagree. The couple made it clear that only one individual made such comment- they never passed judgment on the whole family. Moreover, any honest fair person would admit that the actions of one individual doesn't speak for the actions of many.

Let me play devil's advocate- imagine if Meghan simply said "it wasn't true"- no one would believe. She gave more details and many on this forum don't believe her- how much more so if she was vague. I never read Finding Freedom so I cannot comment on it- I can only comment om what I have seen and heard come out of Meghan's mouth via the interview.

This is not so.

"There [were] many opportunities for my family to show some public support.... Yet no one from my family ever said anything. That hurts."

People saying his decision not to name anyone throws the entire family under the bus are appreciating his comment and his decision in the larger context- including comments like the above- of the entire interview.

Osipi 03-12-2021 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2380248)
Why is Meghan keeping it going if Kate sent flowers and apologised, why is it not forgotten.
Why did They not raise the other stories they claimed were wrong , Tiara gate as an example.

My guess is that the the story about Kate along with the skin tone comment happened within the private lives of the royal family where there's an element of trust that exists that they can be themselves without fear of it being blared on the next day's red top. Tiara gate involved actual Buckingham Palace staff the could rebut and disprove the story more credibly than family members that Meghan *knew* wouldn't respond to the claims.

Erin9 03-12-2021 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380260)
My guess is that the the story about Kate along with the skin tone comment happened within the private lives of the royal family where there's an element of trust that exists that they can be themselves without fear of it being blared on the next day's red top. Tiara gate involved actual Buckingham Palace staff the could rebut and disprove the story more credibly than family members that Meghan *knew* wouldn't respond to the claims.



Good point. That trust is now truly gone.

US Royal Watcher 03-12-2021 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380252)
I disagree. The couple made it clear that only one individual made such comment- they never passed judgment on the whole family. Moreover, any honest fair person would admit that the actions of one individual doesn't speak for the actions of many.

Let me play devil's advocate- imagine if Meghan simply said "it wasn't true"- no one would believe. She gave more details and many on this forum don't believe her- how much more so if she was vague. I never read Finding Freedom so I cannot comment on it- I can only comment om what I have seen and heard come out of Meghan's mouth via the interview.

I appreciate that you have taken the time and effort to consider exactly what they said and as a result, you understand that it is unfair to condemn the entire family based on this one anecdote, but many commenters are discussing racism and the royal family, not one individual. The reporters are not asking who made the comment but rather, is the royal family racist.

I understand that providing more detail may make Meghan more credible in some people's eyes. But I believe that it was unnecessary to say anything that made Catherine look bad. It would be very boring if everyone on this forum had the same point of view.

Alisa 03-12-2021 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 2380254)
One vague reference to one comment casts a suspecting shadow over each member of the family: Was it him? Was it her? All would be suspected, none would be excluded. So yes, the whole family was thrown under the bus.

Had the Kate incident been truly settled, with Kate apologizing, etc., then the way to address Oprah's question about it would have been to say, "Kate and I worked all that out, we're good. Next question." Instead she felt compelled to point out that Kate was supposedly completely at fault. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Then there was the mention of "Waity Katie" and the subtle dig at Kate's work experience prior to the wedding. Meghan had to make sure we knew that she had worked a job since she was 13 years old. Contrast that to the notion that many still have that Kate did not have a "proper job" before she married William.

Meghan took several opportunities to disparage Kate during the interview. If you didn't catch them, I would suggest you take off the blinders.

On the countrary, I think the people who want to paint Meghan as a villain is clutching every opportunity her every word from the interview to portray as such. Where in the interview was there mention of a 'Waity Katie" or Kate's work experience prior to the wedding? Where?
Meghan brought up her working as a teenager not in relation to anyone but herself when she spoke about her life experience and work ethic. It wasn't a dig at Catherine or any other family member.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380255)
Alluding that the it could have been any one of the members of the family, outside of the Queen and Philip, most definitely is lining them all up with the wheels of that proverbial bus.

Just as if someone came out and said that "someone on The Royal Forums made this remark and its horrible", it would put each and every one of us under suspicion of having said it because we're all saying things on here. If it was something said three years ago, we'd be combing the archives to find out who the guilty party is. ;)

If someone on The Royal Forums made a horrible remark. No honest and fair person would conclude that everyone on the Royal Forums is guilty and bad- only the individual who made the remark.

Osipi 03-12-2021 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380267)
On the countrary, I think the people who want to paint Meghan as a villain is clutching every opportunity her every word from the interview to portray as such. Where in the interview was there mention of a 'Waity Katie" or Kate's work experience prior to the wedding? Where?
Meghan brought up her working as a teenager not in relation to anyone but herself when she spoke about her life experience and work ethic. It wasn't a dig at Catherine or any other family member.

I'm going out on a limb here and state that we don't have to paint Meghan as a villain in this scenario. She did an excellent job of that all by herself. She painted a clear and precise picture of who she really is in big, bold strokes. We're just looking at the picture. :smile:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380268)
If someone on The Royal Forums made a horrible remark. No honest and fair person would conclude that everyone on the Royal Forums is guilty and bad- only the individual who made the remark.

In an effort to explain my thinking here, the only example of how something like this would whet the appetite to find out just *who* the guilty party is to recall a cliffhanger in a TV drama called "Dallas". People were left up in the air to try and figure out who was it that shot J.R. Same thing applies here. Everyone was a suspect. :biggrin:

Alisa 03-12-2021 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 2380266)
I appreciate that you have taken the time and effort to consider exactly what they said and as a result, you understand that it is unfair to condemn the entire family based on this one anecdote, but many commenters are discussing racism and the royal family, not one individual. The reporters are not asking who made the comment but rather, is the royal family racist.

I understand that providing more detail may make Meghan more credible in some people's eyes. But I believe that it was unnecessary to say anything that made Catherine look bad. It would be very boring if everyone on this forum had the same point of view.

The couple isn't to be blamed because reporters and commenters are asking the wrong questions. It's no fault of their own. I have read and reread Meghan's comments concerning Catherine and I still come to the same conclusion that nothing malicious was said. Meghan even said that Catherine did what she (Meghan) would have done if she offended someone. If Meghan wanted to villify Catherine she would've omitted that part as well as omitting the flowers and note part.

Somebody 03-12-2021 02:29 PM

See quotes from the interview about the Waity Katie comment.

She indicated it wasn't that bad as it wasn't racist.

US Royal Watcher 03-12-2021 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380274)
The couple isn't to be blamed because reporters and commenters are asking the wrong questions. It's no fault of their own. I have read and reread Meghan's comments concerning Catherine and I still come to the same conclusion that nothing malicious was said. Meghan even said that Catherine did what she (Meghan) would have done if she offended someone. If Meghan wanted to villify Catherine she would've omitted that part as well as omitting the flowers and note part.

I disagree in that it is easy to say that the couple can't be blamed for reporters asking the wrong question but whenever someone is talking to the media, they need to evaluate how the media may respond to the allegations. I think Meghan and Harry knew in advance how this interview would be perceived.

Erin9 03-12-2021 02:32 PM

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380247)
It was quite clear from the interview that whoever said it- said it a malicious and racist way. Why else would Harry say that it would be "damaging " to explain more and reveal the person's name?



No, it wasn’t clear.

For one- you have to find Meghan and Harry to be reliable to begin with. Their stories weren’t the same on this issue. And- we already know they lied- about the title issue for one. So, nothing is clear.

Furthermore- Harry calls it “damaging.” Could have been inappropriate, thoughtless. Who knows. Was it really racist? And who gets to decide that off of ONE comment? It was years ago.

If you take Harry’s version as closest to accurate- it was one time while they were dating. So, many years ago, and no one will remember this the same way, even if you assume everyone is actually doing their best to be honest. No one will ever “know” exactly what was said or intended.

We are talking about- according to Harry- one comment. Apparently said person never said anything racist before or after. Doesn’t sound like the individual actually was racist to me. And Harry- IMO- likely heard one thing while this person said another based on that alone. And who knows how Harry then relayed it to Meghan. Probably wasn’t EXACTLY what was said or intended. It never is.

No one IMO should have to explain themselves to millions of people until they die over literally one comment in a private conversation.

One that Meghan and Harry were so deeply upset and devastated over that they never bothered to address with the individual privately... but were perfectly happy to convey in vague terms to millions for a sympathy bid and to hurt Harry’s family.

They threw the entire family under the bus with this. Everyone looks bad now. And that’s how they wanted it. Well, particularly Meghan since she brought it up to begin with. She wanted everyone to be under scrutiny. That was the point of bringing it up. (And to give everyone another reason to feel for poor put- upon Meghan).

They were vague about what happened and inconsistent about when/how often. But- race is a buzz word..... so of course they had to say something on the subject so that they could complete the Victim Tour.

Private matters should have remained private IMO.

Alisa 03-12-2021 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380269)
I'm going out on a limb here and state that we don't have to paint Meghan as a villain in this scenario. She did an excellent job of that all by herself. She painted a clear and precise picture of who she really is in big, bold strokes. We're just looking at the picture. :smile:

I suppose like art- it is all subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380269)
In an effort to explain my thinking here, the only example of how something like this would whet the appetite to find out just *who* the guilty party is to recall a cliffhanger in a TV drama called "Dallas". People were left up in the air to try and figure out who was it that shot J.R. Same thing applies here. Everyone was a suspect. :biggrin:

I'll give you an example if how I think. Once as a young child, my cousins and I were running around and playing in the backyard. One of my cousins pulled up a vegetable root! My grandaunt was upset and threatened to spank all of us if the culprit didn't come forward. My cousin refused to confess and after another threat of a communal spanking- I pointed him out. Yes- I snitched. :-p But even then at a young age- I was never one to take other people's punishment.
So no- I never and will never interpret one individual's actions as being representative of the way the whole family thinks. That just makes no sense.

leene 03-12-2021 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380247)
It was quite clear from the interview that whoever said it- said it a malicious and racist way. Why else would Harry say that it would be "damaging " to explain more and reveal the person's name?

We don't know what was said exactly but if it is true that Archie could not be a prince because of his colour ( what Meghan suggested) and therefore could not have protection ( what they said as well) it is malicious and racist. They could go to court and probably win!

Oprah did not elaborate this further. Harry did not want to say the name, but Oprah could have asked whether they confronted the person, she did not. Was it said once, was it really malicious or stupidity etc etc.
I just don't get it... they just dropped bomb after bomb. This was not an interview, she just gave them a chance to say everything they wanted without being critical. On the long run this is not going to help Harry and Meghan.
Another example: They took my passport and car keys.Does she mean she was almost imprisoned?
Very peculiar! so peculiar that I looked deeper in to it. She traveled in her marriage more than 10 times, from Whale watching in Norway to a holiday home from friends in Italy to her babyshower in the USA.:huh:
She weakens her own story. It is only "they are all against me"

Harry said that the royal family is afraid of the gutter press and that the royals even invite them to the palace. That is very interesting and she should have asked more about that. Because this is seriously worrying. How can the royal family be freed from the gutter press. That is more interesting than whinging and telling 'the truth' about family members who can't defend themselves

RosieStroud 03-12-2021 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380255)
Alluding that the it could have been any one of the members of the family, outside of the Queen and Philip, most definitely is lining them all up with the wheels of that proverbial bus.

Just as if someone came out and said that "someone on The Royal Forums made this remark and its horrible", it would put each and every one of us under suspicion of having said it because we're all saying things on here. If it was something said three years ago, we'd be combing the archives to find out who the guilty party is. ;)



At the risk of being shouted down, can I just respectfully raise a question and a humble opinion.

With regards to the opinion, I would agree that the Catherine/Meghan upsetting incident (whoever was the instigator!) needs to be put to bed. According to Meghan herself, this has been resolved satisfactorily. These differences happen, especially when people are stressed, i.e. wedding preparations. Most adults, having let off steam, will apologise, as appropriate and move on.

My question is around the alleged ‘racist’ conversation. Who was this question actually put to - Meghan & Harry together, Meghan alone or Harry alone? Do we know whether there were witnesses? Whilst I would NEVER condone racism in any form, to make any accusation one needs to be able to produce evidence to support it. I am happy to be corrected if I have missed something in the interview that answers this question.

Thank you.

Osipi 03-12-2021 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380281)
I'll give you an example if how I think. Once as a young child, my cousins and I were running around and playing in the backyard. One of my cousins pulled up a vegetable root! My grandaunt was upset and threatened to spank all of us if the culprit didn't come forward. My cousin refused to confess and after another threat of a communal spanking- I pointed him out. Yes- I snitched. :-p But even then at a young age- I was never one to take other people's punishment.
So no- I never and will never interpret one individual's actions as being representative of the way the whole family thinks. That just makes no sense.

Thing is, the cliffhanger was resolved 8 months later and we found out who did shoot J.R. The culprit in your scenario was pointed out and justice was served to the person that deserved it. In the interview scenario, we'll probably never know who the actual culprit really is nor the context of what was said at the time or even the comment in the actual words that were stated. We're left hanging that someone in the royal family made a racist remark with the finger now being pointed that it could be any one of them outside of the Queen and Philip.

What would have happened if you hadn't snitched? The entire group of you would have been spanked. All of you would have been deemed guilty as charged. Maybe Harry *does* need to be a snitch?

A Tudor 03-12-2021 02:51 PM

New YouGov polls on H&M popularity.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uGov-poll.html


It's dreadful.

HighGoalHighDreams 03-12-2021 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RosieStroud (Post 2380284)
At the risk of being shouted down, can I just respectfully raise a question and a humble opinion.

With regards to the opinion, I would agree that the Catherine/Meghan upsetting incident (whoever was the instigator!) needs to be put to bed. According to Meghan herself, this has been resolved satisfactorily. These differences happen, especially when people are stressed, i.e. wedding preparations. Most adults, having let off steam, will apologise, as appropriate and move on.

My question is around the alleged ‘racist’ conversation. Who was this question actually put to - Meghan & Harry together, Meghan alone or Harry alone? Do we know whether there were witnesses? Whilst I would NEVER condone racism in any form, to make any accusation one needs to be able to produce evidence to support it. I am happy to be corrected if I have missed something in the interview that answers this question.

Thank you.

Pretty much all we know was that it was a single comment, put to Harry and only Harry, early on in his relationship with Meghan.

KrissyM 03-12-2021 03:01 PM

Hello, I've been lurking here off-and-on for a few years and I never thought I'd join as my true interest in Royalty is mainly centered in the Renaissance, or the Regency. Not really hot topics from what I've seen. However, what fascinates me about The Duke and Duchess of Sussex is the all-in or all-out viewpoints.

For example, comments implying or outright saying, 'The Duke and Duchess' are "bringing the monarchy down" baffle me. I think it will take a lot more than an interview with Ms. Oprah to do that amount of damage to a 1000 yr old institution. There have been worse tell-all's and interviews in the last three decades. They've been well covered on these very forums.

Another thing I find nearly incomprehensible is the assertions made that the Monarchy cannot change its press policy or the LP's. Yes it can! The monarchy has adapted and evolved since time began. The monarchy of the Lancastrians is not the same monarchy of the Tudors, the monarchy of the Georgians is not the same as the monarchy of Victoria, etc. Today's monarchy is not the same monarchy as it was when I was a child. To survive all institutions must keep growing and changing. That's just life. The monarchy can change how the system works.

Note: What changes and how they should be made is a whole other discussion.

Finally, I believe the Duke and Duchess's comments are nowhere near as detrimental as most people seem to think.

stunking 03-12-2021 03:05 PM

I just watched a short review of the interview with Oprah (not the whole thing). It's on youtube. It's the behavior panel and they are experts on body language and the use of
language. Very insightful guys. Sinces Meghan take no responsibilty for what happend they sight her as being a narcisist. The interview was obviosly about Meghan. Harry did say the the so called racist remark was made in the begining and not when she was pregnant with Archie. It had nothing to do with him, they do name a couple of suspects and it is interesting how they arrived to them. It was a very cruel interview.

Erin9 03-12-2021 03:06 PM

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2380269)
I'm going out on a limb here and state that we don't have to paint Meghan as a villain in this scenario. She did an excellent job of that all by herself. She painted a clear and precise picture of who she really is in big, bold strokes. We're just looking at the picture. [emoji2]
:



I would have to agree.

And in case there was any doubt left- her friend who gave the authorized follow up interview and the email release just helped confirm what was already pretty clear.

Plus- they proved it was a lie when they said that this interview was a one and done hatchet job.

All Harry and Meghan had to do was handle their exit with quiet dignity. Instead a year later, they’re still fuming. You’d think this had all happened yesterday to listen to them.

Hallo girl 03-12-2021 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380210)
I agree to an extent that I would have asked alot more questions about her mental health- especially since she made a big deal about suicidal and not getting the help she needed at that time. I wanted to know how did she get help? Is she in therapy?..etc..etc.

I disagree about the spirit of Archewell being at odds with the couple's. I don't believe they're bad people with no good intentions and as such cannot have a philanthropic foundation.
I believe they felt terribly disappointed and hurt at the treatment they received being senior members of the royal family. They never threw anyone under the bus- they simply explained how they felt and their version of the events- their "truths".

Exactly their version of events, and with another interviewer or at least a journalist who knows anything about Britain and the monarchy could have poked holes in a great deal of what they said.

I cannot really comment on the conversation as they have not provided us with enough detail, but to claim that Archie did not receive a title of prince or security because he is bi racial is wrong. Prince Williams children are the only great grandchildren to have titles. So either they conveniently forget the other great grand kids, is it 5 or 6 who do not have titles, or what they are saying is that they want Archie to be the same as Williams kids. If that is the case then be honest about it, they could have said they were disappointed.

Is the privacy issue now the reaction to Archie not being a prince, so they stamped their feet and said well no title then no pictures.

So that is maybe 'their truth' but it is not factual. The rules were not changed to ensure Archie did not get the title. He should be given one automatically when Charles becomes King.

Either they said it like that or Oprah has edited it to look like that is what they said.

Another story that possibly came out after the interview but she had to chose between security for Archie or less for herself on the Africa tour. Not her decision to make, these decisions are made by the security team before the tour even starts. It is called planning.


This has caused a great deal of trouble in the UK, our queen of nearly 70 years must be heart broken with the behaviour of her grandson, I can excuse Meghan not knowing the rules and the protocol but not Harry. But I do blame her for wording certain things in a certain way to make herself the victim. Nobody is saying we are perfect here, but she has stirred up so much trouble, not opening dialogue but causing trouble, she could have stayed and achieved so much,

What I have taken from this whole debacle is that there is jealousy in there somewhere.

Only the week before they were promoting compassion and kindness and then they throw out accusations with no evidence and incorrect facts.

They do appear to have a problem with the Cambridges, in particular Kate

tommy100 03-12-2021 03:13 PM

Couldn't see this posted but the Sussexes seem to have come of worst in the view of the British public after the interview:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...s-new-low-afte


I'm sure Charles will be peeved that he is the only other royal to see their popularity drop after the interview, that may backfire on H&M. No other royals saw their popularity decrease significantly & the number of people supporting the idea of monarchy has stayed the same.

Kataryn 03-12-2021 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin9 (Post 2380221)
When I read the email yesterday that the Sussexes wanted released....I wondered what the value add was supposed to be.


I seem to miss out on this email(s) that was in circulation. Can someone please point me to it?

Hallo girl 03-12-2021 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrissyM (Post 2380290)
Another thing I find nearly incomprehensible is the assertions made that the Monarchy cannot change its press policy or the LP's. Yes it can! The monarchy has adapted and evolved since time began. The monarchy of the Lancastrians is not the same monarchy of the Tudors, the monarchy of the Georgians is not the same as the monarchy of Victoria, etc. Today's monarchy is not the same monarchy as it was when I was a child. To survive all institutions must keep growing and changing. That's just life. The monarchy can change how the system works.

Note: What changes and how they should be made is a whole other discussion.

Finally, I believe the Duke and Duchess's comments are nowhere near as detrimental as most people seem to think.

You are right they could have issued changes to make Archie a prince, but they didn't, it was because the Queen has lived to this great age that they had to change the rules for Williams kids.

What Meghan inferred , or how it was edited was that they changed the rules to stop him being a prince and that is factually incorrect.
Ps I am interested in the Tudor Kings and Queens also. Could have a good chat about our favourites.

KrissyM 03-12-2021 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2380299)
You are right they could have issued changes to make Archie a prince, but they didn't, it was because the Queen has lived to this great age that they had to change the rules for Williams kids.

What Meghan inferred , or how it was edited was that they changed the rules to stop him being a prince and that is factually incorrect.
Ps I am interested in the Tudor Kings and Queens also. Could have a good chat about our favourites.

I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.

My point was this, the extreme anger about this interview is baffling. Other members of the Family have done and said much worse during the history of the Monarchy with far less anger and mercy showed to the Sussex's. Comparing them to The Duke and Duchess of Windsor is ludicrous in the extreme.

Hallo girl 03-12-2021 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrissyM (Post 2380301)
I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.

My point was this, the extreme anger about this interview is baffling. Other members of the Family have done and said much worse during the history of the Monarchy with far less anger and mercy showed to the Sussex's. Comparing them to The Duke and Duchess of Windsor is ludicrous in the extreme.

I wouldn't compare them to the Windsors, that was a different time, different issues but I think other royal interviews have back fired on the person themselves. This couple appear to have gone out to damage the monarchy with some of what they said, the Queen is the head of the commonwealth over 50 countries , and Meghan accuses them of racist acts against her and her son with no evidence other than ' their truth '.

Estel 03-12-2021 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380246)
Had Meghan give multiple instances of various family members saying offensive and racists things then yes perhaps. However she gave just one incident of a one individual making such a statement. That is definitely not throwing the family under the bus.

Regarding the Kate incident it has been the one longstanding story that refuses to go away. People believe allegations about staff abuse because of that story. The reality is that Meghan portrayed Kate in a flattering way as someone who was kind and humble- someone who apogized when they were wrong and even gave Meghan flowers. Meghan said nothing bad about Kate.
The fact that you would believe Meghan made Kate cry despite the leaked emails that state otherwise and despite the fact that Meghan clarified that it was just the opposite just about says it all.

What exactly does it say? That there is a possibility that Kate could've cried? Is there none?

About throwing the entire family under the bus, yes, they've done so. So, let's just agree to disagree.

KrissyM 03-12-2021 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2380303)
This couple appear to have gone out to damage the monarchy with some of what they said, the Queen is the head of the commonwealth over 50 countries , and Meghan accuses them of racist acts against her and her son with no evidence other than ' their truth '.

I think the key word is appear here. If I may point out some points I don't think have been brought out.

1. The interview was edited. We know this because 'outtakes' have been aired. We have no idea if the Sussex's had editorial approval.

2. From what I've read people seem either unable or unwilling to separate criticism from How the Firm does things from Who in the Firm does them. This is a major problem for any Monarchy in the 21st century.

3. Personally, I think a lot of the problem is that The Duchess is from the USA. US English and UK English are two totally different beasts.

4. The allegations of the Duke "not loving" his family is overdramatic and unfair. When he said The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cambridge were "trapped" it's context suggested the media policy of the Firm. Something I'd suggest is seriously outdated now.

Kataryn 03-12-2021 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams (Post 2380288)
Pretty much all we know was that it was a single comment, put to Harry and only Harry, early on in his relationship with Meghan.


And we can imagine who said it, when a conversation brought on the rift between Harry and a "relative" and why Harry did react the way he did because I don't think he wanted his wife to p**s on his relatives shoes. For something that was probably a misunderstanding but IMHO brought Meghan's hatred on to that branch of the family. For the way that interview showed, there is not much positive energy and compassion within Meghan when it comes to the "treatment" of her and her son, for whatever reasons.

Mbruno 03-12-2021 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrissyM (Post 2380301)
I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.


The general trend in other European monarchies (the Netherlands, Spain, and most recently Sweden) has been to limit the HRH only to children of the monarch, the heir (if not already included in the previous category), and children of the heir.



The UK already goes beyond that by also extending the HRH to all grandchildren in paternal line of a sovereign and to the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The latter rules have not been changed as of today, so Archie is still in the position to become a prince when Prince Charles becomes king (and the Palace even confirmed that when Archie was born).



Changing the rules now, i.e. in the current reign, so that another great-grandson of the Queen, in this case in collateral line, could be a prince from birth would not only go against the general trend to limit the number of HRHs, but also would be complicated for the Queen considering that she already amended the LPs of 1917 in 2012 to extend princely titles to all of William's children (and not only his firstborn son as before), thereby already increasing the number of people who are eligible to be HRHs. Besides, it would be clearly an unnecessary move as Archie will probably become a prince anyway in the future under existing rules.


So, yes, even though it doesn't affect me personally (as it doesn't affect you), I think that, objectively and thinking about public opinion and potential reactions, it was the right thing not to change the rules for Archie.

ladongas 03-12-2021 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrissyM (Post 2380301)
I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.

My point was this, the extreme anger about this interview is baffling. Other members of the Family have done and said much worse during the history of the Monarchy with far less anger and mercy showed to the Sussex's. Comparing them to The Duke and Duchess of Windsor is ludicrous in the extreme.

It seems that most people on the forums believe that Harry and Meghan have committed high crimes and lied about everything, and that the BRF have made no mistakes about anything at all, including their treatment of their sons’ and (grandson’s) wives. There has been no noblesse oblige from the BRF on these sad issues.

KrissyM 03-12-2021 03:53 PM

Like I said, Master Archie having an HRH is so outside of my life that I can't have strong feelings about it either way. I simply see why an outsider could believe its unfair to make special exception for one set of kids and not all of them. This is a 21st century mindset. I still say this interview is positively mild compared to those made by other members of the family. All the anger is disturbing.

Queen Ester 03-12-2021 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alisa (Post 2380247)
It was quite clear from the interview that whoever said it- said it a malicious and racist way. Why else would Harry say that it would be "damaging " to explain more and reveal the person's name?

Because the person has a right to clear the air, as I said, we don't know what was said, if Harry does not want to name names, then he should prove an exact quote, let's agree to disagree on this one

Estel 03-12-2021 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrissyM (Post 2380313)
Like I said, Master Archie having an HRH is so outside of my life that I can't have strong feelings about it either way. I simply see why an outsider could believe its unfair to make special exception for one set of kids and not all of them. This is a 21st century mindset. I still say this interview is positively mild compared to those made by other members of the family. All the anger is disturbing.

Of course it is unfair, but that's how the system works. There can only be one King, and that's the end of that. Anyway, Archie will get a title eventually, so that's not that big of a deal.

If it was a mild interview, then I find the anger from the other side very disturbing that has resulted in people quitting their jobs, or harassed to the point of taking their words back.

KrissyM 03-12-2021 04:06 PM

Forgive me if I have come across as angry or unreasonable. I certainly don't want to add to the drama. I only thought to bring out that the system can and has changed over the course of 1000 yrs.

A Tudor 03-12-2021 04:08 PM

A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.

tihkon2 03-12-2021 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 2380310)
It seems that most people on the forums believe that Harry and Meghan have committed high crimes and lied about everything, and that the BRF have made no mistakes about anything at all, including their treatment of their sons’ and (grandson’s) wives. There has been no noblesse oblige from the BRF on these sad issues.

Nope. I disagree.

Somebody 03-12-2021 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Tudor (Post 2380318)
A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.

Harry and Meghan ARE royal highnesses and don't have paid security, so why would Archie suddenly be entitled to security IF he would become a prince (which I am not sure about - I think the chances are bigger that LPs are issued consistent with the current treatment of the queen's youngest grandchildren).

Several other royal highnesses in the family don't have round the clock security either or no government security at all. So, only in Meghan's mind those things are related, in reality they are not.

Heavs 03-12-2021 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 2380310)
It seems that most people on the forums believe that Harry and Meghan have committed high crimes and lied about everything, and that the BRF have made no mistakes about anything at all, including their treatment of their sons’ and (grandson’s) wives. There has been no noblesse oblige from the BRF on these sad issues.

Oh I think The BRF have made plenty of mistakes in general and have made mistakes with Harry and Meghan and have their own egos and much more than their fair share of dysfunction BTS and it was probably for the best that H&M left if it was making them so miserable.

I also think that a lot what Harry and Meghan actually said was disingenuous at best and deliberate lies at worst. Things like the titles, security, having her passport confiscated so she couldn't go anywhere, "real" wedding, some of the headlines used were deliberately clipped that can and have been proved to be factually wrong yet are taken at face value by Oprah and so many people.

They also didn't take any responsibility for any of it not one "we made a mistake as well" which doesn't help their case in my eyes.

I'm sure if Charles and William did an interview about H&M some of that might come off badly and sound petty and vindictive and disingenuous. Which is one of the reasons why they haven't done one.

This is an interview that has got people very passionate on *both* sides for various reasons.

Osipi 03-12-2021 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Tudor (Post 2380318)
A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.

That will be totally up to the Metropolitan Police Protection Squad. If they are living in the US, I don't see the Met Police deeming to give any of the Sussexes security. However, should they spend part of the year living at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor as originally stated, they may assign security based on a risk assessment.

A title is not a prerequisite for taxpayer funded security. There are many senior working royals with titles that only get taxpayer funded security when performing official duties for the "Firm" (monarchy). Some royals pay for security out of their own pocket.

My guess is that the Sussexes will remain in California and be responsible for any security they have.

KrissyM 03-12-2021 04:19 PM

Speaking of the "wedding" again I think it's entirely possible that as an American talking to another American with a primary audience of Americans she was relating an event that to her meant more emotionally then her public wedding. She never claimed it was her UK legal marriage. It would have been binding as common law in Cali, (if they haven't changed the marriage laws)

AC21091968 03-12-2021 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Tudor (Post 2380318)
A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.

If you want to find out more about how the Met Police had came to the decision that Archie will not receive taxpayer funded protection, as Osipi has kindly pointed out and explained, there is a Times article that came out few days ago.

Harry and Meghan ‘don’t need police protection — their risk isn’t high enough’
Protection for the Sussexes in Canada was estimated to be costing taxpayers more than £1 million a year
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...ough-gcwzdxs6l

Archived link that has the whole article
https://archive.ph/RNEU8#selection-727.0-751.9

AC21091968 03-12-2021 04:33 PM

The BBC has confirmed that Meghan complained to Ofcom (UK's communications regulator) about Piers Morgan's comment on Good Morning Britain. The article also mentioned about Archewell's donation to PressPad Charitable Foundation. The Associated Newspaper (that owns Daily Mail and Mail+) has written ViacomCBS on the deliberate distortion in misleading British newspaper headlines.

Duchess of Sussex has complained to Ofcom over Piers Morgan comments
The Duchess of Sussex has complained to Ofcom about Piers Morgan's comments about her on Good Morning Britain, the UK broadcast regulator has confirmed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainme...ustom2=twitter


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises