Meghan & Harry Interview

[Katy]

Some of these are pretty funny:  https://www.buzzfeed.com/alliehayes/meghan-harry-oprah-interview-twitter-reactions

[TCB]

Just now, importswim said:

This isn't an agree to disagree situation, though. One person's experience doesn't negate another's and both can simultaneously be true.

I am also English and all of my family reside in the UK (though I live in the US). I have experienced lots of racist attitudes and very much come from a family where we don't talk about our feelings and have to retain a stiff upper lip at all times (and I'm no where near aristocracy). My Mum's favorite phrases are "Hey ho, there you go" and "Life still goes on" when any sort of conflict arises. When I talk about feelings now or am too honest it's commented on as me being "too American". 

I do believe that you have had a different experience than the op and me but don't think it should be hard to believe that others have had the experience they're portraying.

 

I didn’t realize that she was from the UK. I also didn’t realize that I was in any way denying racism exists in the UK. Maybe I didn’t read her post carefully enough. 
I do understand that there are many different experiences. I just find the idea of someone like Meghan Markle being kept on virtual house arrest by royal courtiers difficult to believe from all I know of the country. I do realize that they don’t have the same ability to move around unrecognized etc, and that there are many expectations on them. However, when they are in their own home I do believe they have a degree of autonomy.

Anyway I should bow out because I have not watched this interview. What some people are describing sounds fantastical to me. For what it’s worth I knew someone who was a footman to the Queen lol and what he described was certainly different to some of the things in this thread.

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I haven't watched the interview yet but I remember reading about some conflicts in the Royal Family due to Prince Charles wanting to reduce the number of senior royals. Perhaps that is why they didn't want to give the baby a title? 

I hate that I know this, but it's to do with Letters Patent, dating back to George V.

Which was changed only on one occasion, by the Queen, in the case of Kate's kids, before the first one was born, so that if the baby was a girl, she wouldn't be pushed down the line of succession by a subsequent brother. 

Not such an issue for great-grandchildren way down the line. 

Anyway, they can style the poor kid as an Earl if they want. 

 

 

[gstharr]

I missed the whole interview. I am way too busy keeping up with the Kardashians. 

[Melissa Louise]

31 minutes ago, TCB said:

We’ll have to agree to disagree. My family lives in the UK. I lived and worked there for many years. I have a very different view of it than you. Crazy things happen in all countries of the world at times. My life experience in the UK is very different to what you described.

Of course, the UK, like all nations, does some things well and some things poorly. They are having a rough time of it right now, and I feel really sorry for ordinary people in the UK 

I never understand the league table of nations - doubt there is a single one on earth which can throw stones. The US is just having a fun time at the moment hating on a historical enemy as a distraction from their own national issues.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

Why was it acceptable for Fergie to speak to Oprah but not Meghan, who was friends with Oprah before she ever met Harry?

It was never 'acceptable' for Fergie to do so. Poor old Fergie has been mocked from continent to continent since the moment she arrived on the scene.

[importswim]

7 minutes ago, TCB said:

 However, when they are in their own home I do believe they have a degree of autonomy.

 

Who knows what the truth is 🤷‍♀️. I can absolutely see it happening, though, moreso than it not being believable. I don't think anyone here is claiming to know exactly what happened, but what they think. I get that you're doing the same based on your experiences 👍

I don't think the issue was with when they were in their own home, it was outside of it.

[Katy]

8 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I hate that I know this, but it's to do with Letters Patent, dating back to George V.

Which was changed only on one occasion, by the Queen, in the case of Kate's kids, before the first one was born, so that if the baby was a girl, she wouldn't be pushed down the line of succession by a subsequent brother. 

Not such an issue for great-grandchildren way down the line. 

Anyway, they can style the poor kid as an Earl if they want. 

 

 

Again, though I don't know why I'm explaining this for the 5th time to someone who clearly hasn't read the thread or watched the interview:  what Meghan said was that she was told the law said the baby she was late in pregnancy with would normally receive a title of prince or princess when Charles became King.  She was also told that in her case her child would never receive a title, despite the law.  No reason was given despite being repeatedly asked for one. The couple didn't care so much about the title, but they did want the security to keep their baby safe.  This was also denied.  Then Harry's security was yanked with very little warning also, and their Canadian address was leaked to the press. Almost as if someone in the palace wanted them to be killed.

[Melissa Louise]

Re mental health, non-US, non-tabloid sources suggest she had access to a psychotherapist at the time. The therapist is suggested to be one of Diana's old friends. 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

Again, though I don't know why I'm explaining this for the 5th time to someone who clearly hasn't read the thread or watched the interview:  what Meghan said was that she was told the law said the baby she was late in pregnancy with would normally receive a title of prince or princess when Charles became King.  She was also told that in her case her child would never receive a title, despite the law.  No reason was given despite being repeatedly asked for one. The couple didn't care so much about the title, but they did want the security to keep their baby safe.  This was also denied.  Then Harry's security was yanked with very little warning also, and their Canadian address was leaked to the press. Almost as if someone in the palace wanted them to be killed.

I don't believe this framing. It's conspiracy theory. Like the (false) claim the Palace had Diana killed. 

Unfortunately the last 12hrs has educated us all on this bloody interview. Can't listen for the weather report without breathless updates. 

It sounds like it's been a very effective interview for a domestic audience. 

 

[Tanaqui]

Still can't quote or copy and paste. It's a browser issue, but I haven't been able to track it down, so forgive me.

1. While it's surely true that William and Harry and the whole lot of them are also good liars, the fact that they know how to lie well doesn't mean that they necessarily ARE lying at any given point in time. I thought everybody on this board was supposed to be super into logic at all times, and, well, that syllogism simply doesn't hold up.

If you think all the royals and also all actors are really great liars, then instead of saying "Everything they say is a lie" you have to do what we all really do, which is determine what is or isn't true based on corroborating evidence, your understanding of the facts, and their known past history of lying or being honest. (Again, not their history of being able to lie, their history of actually doing it.)

2. Every single year I read at least one article about an incident of modern slavery in the UK where somebody was lured into the country on a work visa, then their passport was taken away and they were forced to work for low/no wages, with no ability to leave or go to the police. It's not always sex work - actually, mostly it's toiling away in a sweatshop or on a farm (which may or may not be a drug farm), but it happens every year. Happens in the US too, and in all sorts of modern nations with a strong legal system.

This also happens all the time to abused spouses - and, let's just allay all your suspicions, I don't mean immigrants because that's not true and I'm neither racist nor naive enough to think that native-born white people in the US and the UK don't end up in this situation too.

Is it more or less likely to have happened to Megan here? IDK. I do know what would have happened if it was happening and she tried to go to the law about it at the time - first, they would've asked if she was sure, then they would've gone to whomever was holding the passport and they would've gaslit her terribly over how stupid she was to misunderstand, of COURSE they weren't holding it hostage, of COURSE she could go whenever she wanted, blah blah blah, and then she would've been smeared all over the media. (Again.) And then unless she was willing to get her bags and leave right then and there, she would've been facing whatever private retribution the whole gang could dish out.

[Melissa Louise]

Here's what I loathe about the timing of this interview and the media's complicity with it - it's IWD. This has pushed coverage of issues affecting actual working women off the front page. And in Covid times, there's a lot to say about the lives of working women. 

I watched Marie Antoinette on the weekend. It's very sympathetic to her; the gilded cage and all. As it should be. Sent to marry the dauphin at 14.  But where the US director just fails is in the romanticizing of the whole 'let me go and play peasant' stage of MA's adult life. The flipping chickens brought this to mind. 

I think that what plays well for US consumption just doesn't play so effectively outside those borders. 

In the spirit of bringing attention to women who are being held hostage, readers of this thread might like to sign this petition:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/help-get-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-home

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

I don't believe this framing. It's conspiracy theory. Like the (false) claim the Palace had Diana killed. 

Unfortunately the last 12hrs has educated us all on this bloody interview. Can't listen for the weather report without breathless updates. 

It sounds like it's been a very effective interview for a domestic audience. 

 

A claim by Meghan and Harry themselves IS NOT a conspiracy theory.  Frame it as a lie if you wish, but it's not some batwing idea from people who ever met them, it's their own claim.

I don't believe the palace had Diana killed.  I do believe they decided to allow the divorce and remove her security because she had the nerve to speak to the press. She wouldn't have died if she'd had security because they wouldn't have allowed a drunk chauffeur.

A former Massad agent wrote a book claiming that the reason Diana died was that the Massad was trying to recruit their driver to spy on the Fayed family.  Some people respond well to the pressures of being recruited to spy.  Others drink too much, get into a panic, and crash their car, even if they are working as a chauffeur for one of the most famous women in the world at the time. I don't remember the name of the book (It may have been something like The Massad) but I read it in the summer of 2002.  I've never read another theory that seemed more likely to me than that.

I think it will be a very effective interview there too.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Katy said:

A claim by Meghan and Harry themselves IS NOT a conspiracy theory.  Frame it as a lie if you wish, but it's not some batwing idea from people who ever met them, it's their own claim.

I don't believe the palace had Diana killed.  I do believe they decided to allow the divorce and remove her security because she had the nerve to speak to the press. She wouldn't have died if she'd had security because they wouldn't have allowed a drunk chauffeur.

A former Massad agent wrote a book claiming that the reason Diana died was that the Massad was trying to recruit their driver to spy on the Fayed family.  Some people respond well to the pressures of being recruited to spy.  Others drink too much, get into a panic, and crash their car, even if they are working as a chauffeur for one of the most famous women in the world at the time. I don't remember the name of the book (It may have been something like The Massad) but I read it in the summer of 2002.  I've never read another theory that seemed more likely to me than that.

I think it will be a very effective interview there too.

 

Diana died because she did not wear a seatbelt in a speeding car. 

I haven't been recruited as a spy, but I've had my share of life stress and at no time did it impact on my ability to put my seatbelt on. 

 

 

[Katy]

nm

Edited March 8, 2021 by Katy

[Melissa Louise]

Re security, there was a huge kerfuffle at the time with taxpayers of the various countries involved not really wanting to foot the bill for non-UK security. 

Canada was not keen at all, so far as I remember. Probably best to blame public opinion for that one. 

[Melissa Louise]

46 minutes ago, Katy said:

Deleted

You're better than your first line and subsequent, and I suggest you delete your accusations that I am ok with child rape. I'll be reporting it. 

 

[Tanaqui]

It's not just you, Thatboyofmine. It's just such an odd sentiment for people to have, and I've noticed it several times here and elsewhere.

If it's any consolation, almost everybody - including people who have theoretically had training and lots of experience - is terrible at telling liars from non-liars. Even parents barely get it better than chance when dealing with their own kids, like, 55% accuracy.

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

You're better than your first line and subsequent, and I suggest you delete your accusations that I am ok with child rape. I'll be reporting it. 

 

I cannot delete something that's quoted.  You've made it patently obvious that you're fine with the way the palace has handled Prince Andrew and using lies about Meghan Markle to distract the press from him, but everything the women who marry into the family say to criticize the family in any way whatsoever is a lie or a conspiracy theory.

[Melissa Louise]

Everyone fibs at times. Everyone has and expresses cognitive biases that they fully and genuinely believe. Royal, non-royal, American, English. It's a human trait. We all tell a story at times that favours our self-image, and lots of us use therapy as away of getting to a more balanced way of seeing ourselves, of trying to reduce the fibs we tell ourselves to stay comfy. 

None of us really know how close to truth another cleaves. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

I cannot delete something that's quoted.  You've made it patently obvious that you're fine with the way the palace has handled Prince Andrew and using lies about Meghan Markle to distract the press from him, but everything the women who marry into the family say to criticize the family in any way whatsoever is a lie or a conspiracy theory.

I suggest you get a grip. 

I'll be reporting this post too. 

You've lost the plot, throwing around allegations about me being ok with child rape. Its ugly, untrue, and you need to reign in your animus. 

[TCB]

47 minutes ago, Katy said:

Deleted

What the heck? Where did all this come from?

[SoCal_Bear]

A fact check list from the interview. It was an interesting read.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9338421/Royal-revelations-test.html

 

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by calbear

[hippymamato3]

10 minutes ago, calbear said:

A fact check list from the interview. It was an interesting read.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9338421/Royal-revelations-test.html

 

 

Isn't Daily Mail a tabloid?

[Tanaqui]

The Daily Fail is what all the bigots read.

[Melissa Louise]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and its reporting is often sensational and simplistic. It's not reliable as a single source. 

[Selkie]

6 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

Isn't Daily Mail a tabloid?

Are the facts in the article wrong?

[hippymamato3]

1 minute ago, Selkie said:

Are the facts in the article wrong?

There aren't facts - there are opinions. "Unlikely" isn't a fact.

[TCB]

7 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

I want to be fair as much as possible, so I did read this article though it is the daily mail. I apologize for the  below content, but when the royal rota spin, it sounds a bit like this. It was forwarded to me from Twitter. Penny Junor is a biographer and a royal commentator.

Who would tell someone that? Crazy! I don’t really believe they would have told Junor that lol, or anyone else. I’m not in the Charles and Camilla fan club at all, but I don’t think they are stupid.

[TCB]

1 minute ago, hippymamato3 said:

There aren't facts - there are opinions. "Unlikely" isn't a fact.

Some of those were definitely facts. Thinking back I know I read their statement at the time of leaving, and it said they wanted to be financially independent.

[Selkie]

2 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

There aren't facts - there are opinions. "Unlikely" isn't a fact.

Nah, there are plenty of facts in there, too. I just read through the whole thing.

[Selkie]

5 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

The words allegedly, palace sources are all strong clues usually. Plus the judgements routinely delivered against them by actual judges sued even by royals make me take the Daily Mail with a mountain of salt. They are very cross with Harry and Meghan currently, they have been getting huge judgements against them lately. They have to apologize to Meghan in a front page and pay damages.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a35749386/meghan-markle-apology-tabloid-printed-private-letter-father/

All this makes their "fact" checking a bit suspect to me.

I understand all that. If you read the article, though, there are actual facts contained within.  For example, the legal requirements for a Church of England marriage, and the rules regarding royal titles - to name just a couple. Just because the facts are in a tabloid doesn't make them untrue.

[Tanaqui]

Sure, but you can pick and choose your facts to create a narrative. We all do it all the time, but the Fail's narrative is generally reprehensible to all people with a modicum of standards.

[Melissa Louise]

Having now read it, if you took away all the adjectives, it's basically similar to what's in The Guardian. Which is no guarantee of truth as TG is just as click baity. 

 

[Selkie]

1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

Sure, but you can pick and choose your facts to create a narrative. We all do it all the time, but the Fail's narrative is generally reprehensible to all people with a modicum of standards.

So just as an example: Meghan and Harry said they were married by the Archbishop three days before their wedding and they were the only three people there. Daily Mail pointed out that a marriage could not happen in that scenario because the Church of England requires two witnesses. That's just the Daily Mail creating a narrative, and not a fact?

 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Selkie said:

So just as an example: Meghan and Harry said they were married by the Archbishop three days before their wedding and they were the only three people there. Daily Mail pointed out that a marriage could not happen in that scenario because the Church of England requires two witnesses. That's just the Daily Mail creating a narrative, and not a fact?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/meghans-claim-of-private-garden-wedding-sparks-confusion

[mathnerd]

23 minutes ago, TCB said:

Some of those were definitely facts. Thinking back I know I read their statement at the time of leaving, and it said they wanted to be financially independent.

Charles cut them off because they said that they wanted nothing to do with royal money which had strings attached - probably hurt Charles a lot by saying that. So, now, Charles, who walked Meghan down the aisle at their "second" wedding which they are slamming now and acted like a surrogate father to her is the bad guy. If they wanted to be financially independent and make documentaries, reality series and use the Royal Title Sussex for branding themselves on social media, I fail to see what the commotion is about. 

If there was indeed racism, which I doubt because Charles welcomed Meghan into his family in the most public way possible thereby setting expectations for all the palace staff, she left the so-called racist establishment in a public way as well and she needs to move on and she and her husband need to focus on their kids, their goals for being financially independent and live their lives as American Citizens where there is zero royalty. 

[ktgrok]

26 minutes ago, Selkie said:

So just as an example: Meghan and Harry said they were married by the Archbishop three days before their wedding and they were the only three people there. Daily Mail pointed out that a marriage could not happen in that scenario because the Church of England requires two witnesses. That's just the Daily Mail creating a narrative, and not a fact?

 

1. She likely means they had a wedding ceremony - not that it was legal. 

2. Or, they had witnesses, but not in the sense of counting them as guests. For instance, DH and I were married in a private ceremony in a small chapel in Scotland, by priest that is part of the same communion of churches as the Church of England. We say all the time it was a private ceremony, just us and the priest. But in reality, we did have a photographer and videographer. They were not guests though, so we usually don't mention them. Why would we? But because they were there, they signed our marriage certificate as our witnesses. 

[Laura Corin]

17 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

I did read it. But Harry and Meghan have circumvented the rules of the Anglican church before. Like in the case of Archie's christening. I can't source it now, but I think the Royal godparents or the church of England general baptism records are public so Godparents are known by that. They circumvented by having it in a private chapel of the Queen or something like that. More in the attached link.

In this case, the Queen is the head of the Anglican church and since it says the Archbishop of Canterbury conducted their secret wedding and he was the one who conducted the televised one, I would like more details on it. The Queen is the head of the Anglican church and with all that chaos that happened I can imagine the Queen giving special dispensation if she can and them having two witnesses. Who knows ?. I need the Bishop to clarify that before I believe the DM outrage. They have a tendency to selectively tell the "truth" by hiding much of the rest even if they know to spin a story.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/07/why-harry-and-meghan-are-keeping-archies-godparents-a-mystery

 

The Church of England doesn't make the rules for a legal marriage though.  As far as I  know you need two witnesses whether you marry in a synagogue or a castle.

[ktgrok]

Dispensations to marry outdoors are given by the bishop, so the arch bishop can do that if he wants to, for sure. 

For it to be LEGAL it needs two witnesses, but again, that can be a hired photographer and the gardener who happened to be working in the area. 

[J-rap]

I've never been a fan of the Royals, and really don't follow them or know much about any of them personally.  (Although I did occasionally read about Diana because we're in the same age-range, so I remember hearing about her wedding and remember where I was when she died.)

Aaaand, I didn't watch the interview.  But just following along on this thread...

I'd guess that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but I do believe that Harry and Meghan are really trying to do the right thing for their family, and are doing the best they can based on who they are and what they know.

It just seems like you can't judge people according to who YOU are or what YOU think, because everyone's starting point is different.  All you can question is:  Are they trying to do the right thing now based on their starting point?  Are they taking a step that they are hoping will bring them closer to bettering themselves as citizens of this world and supporting each other and creating a healthy environment for their growing family?   Even in the midst of possibly bad choices, over-reactions, imperfect understandings...it seems like they're really trying hard to do what they feel is right and healthy for each other and their family, and I wish them well.

It also really bothers me when people say that professional actors are obviously good liars so that's probably part of what Meghan is doing.  The actors I know personally are probably the opposite...  Certainly not perfect, no.  But they tend to be very sensitive, and perhaps react more to their emotions as a result, but they're not purposely making up a good story and pretending it's true when they know it isn't.

Edited March 8, 2021 by J-rap

[Laura Corin]

9 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Dispensations to marry outdoors are given by the bishop, so the arch bishop can do that if he wants to, for sure. 

For it to be LEGAL it needs two witnesses, but again, that can be a hired photographer and the gardener who happened to be working in the area. 

Is that right? I thought that venues had to be licenced and indoors - although that is changing. I think they had a blessing in the garden, which is a sweet idea.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-marriages-and-partnerships-approved-premises-list

[ktgrok]

39 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Is that right? I thought that venues had to be licenced and indoors - although that is changing. I think they had a blessing in the garden, which is a sweet idea.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-marriages-and-partnerships-approved-premises-list

Oh~ I was thinking it was a church rule, not a state rule. My bad! Like, here, you can have a civil marriage outdoors, but th Catholic Church requires indoors, etc. 

[Tanaqui]

1 hour ago, Selkie said:

So just as an example: Meghan and Harry said they were married by the Archbishop three days before their wedding and they were the only three people there. Daily Mail pointed out that a marriage could not happen in that scenario because the Church of England requires two witnesses. That's just the Daily Mail creating a narrative, and not a fact?

 

OH WOW THE QUOTE BUTTON WORKED.

Okay, I have no intention of actually clicking through to the DM because, as I said, I have standards.

But here's the narrative I'm seeing - they said they were married in this way before their public ceremony, and that this is the wedding they "count" as the real one, and since the exact details of what they describe don't make for a legal marriage, therefore, they're lying liars who lie.

It's not possible, say, that they had a private ceremony that wasn't legally valid but which was meaningful to them, and that this is what they're talking about? (And that, idk, they did have two witnesses but didn't count them because they weren't guests?)

And honestly, if this is the level of detail that the DM is attacking, that's a narrative all its own. Meghan and Harry: It's a super toxic environment and abusive and bad! DM: Well, they lied about that "wedding ceremony", so....

[TCB]

Thinking about it more I kind of wonder if you would really want all this stuff out there in the public domain. Do you want your kids reading that someone in their paternal family was wondering what color your skin was before you were born? I know some people on here seem to advocate breaking family ties. I can see that sometimes if all else fails, but is that really true here? I’m really not for burning bridges unless you absolutely can’t help it. Is it really so important to defend yourself and prove yourself right? 

[Tanaqui]

If your kids are mixed-race, and their relatives are racist, then you should probably tell your kids so they know not to trust those people.

Quote

Is it really so important to defend yourself and prove yourself right? 

Some of the awful things Meghan and Harry are alleging happened pretty publicly. Was it really so important for those people to be publicly terrible? Or to leak awful stories - true or not - to the media without giving their own names?

[DeainUSA]

I wanted more details on how she said nothing is what it seems and the tennis match with her and Kate were mentioned.  I felt like there was some more things Oprah could have asked or dug deeper on.

[TCB]

8 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

If your kids are mixed-race, and their relatives are racist, then you should probably tell your kids so they know not to trust those people.

Some of the awful things Meghan and Harry are alleging happened pretty publicly. Was it really so important for those people to be publicly terrible? Or to leak awful stories - true or not - to the media without giving their own names?

No it wasn’t fair. But my question was really more about the best for their children, and protecting them.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, TCB said:

No it wasn’t fair. But my question was really more about the best for their children, and protecting them.

You don’t protect your kids from snakes by pretending they’re teddy bears.

[mathnerd]

1 hour ago, Dreamergal said:

Like calling Harry a hostage because it was all Meghan's fault. ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9333119/Royal-staff-nicknamed-Prince-Harry-Hostage-wedding-Meghan-Markle.html

 

He said, She said ... I take these things with a huge grain of salt because there is no evidence that anyone called him a Hostage. There is a lot of public commentary where he is called a lot of things, but, the Royals never said anything bad about Harry in public as far as my infrequent reading of Royal news indicate. In fact, I read that he was Elizabeth's favorite grandson and remains so! Even if someone called Harry a Hostage (which I doubt), Harry is a wealthy, powerful, influential man who bravely served in the army and was deployed in Afghanistan, and is almost 40 and can take care of the gossip from a few of grandma's staff, I am sure!!

H&M refuse to name any names - thereby they have thrown the entire royal family and the palace staff under the bus. If they are really so brave as to be "Diana-like", they should name names and be done with it.

@Dreamergaldon't worry, I don't hold you accountable for Meghan and Harry's interview or words. I know that you are a royal watcher like millions of others.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by mathnerd