Meghan & Harry Interview

[Carrie12345]

18 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I have to be honest it’s really gut feeling only but she just doesn’t come across genuine to me, so that probably colours my opinion.  With no specifics it’s hard to make much sense of the allegations.  Needless to say I didn’t watch the interview as I’m just sick of hearing about them - maybe we got an overdose during the stupid Australia tour or something, but the snippets I heard just didn’t come across overly credible.  

I started to watch it last night because of this thread, lol, but I haven’t finished it. It’s really the first time I’ve listened to her speak. I think she sounds like... an experienced actress who is trying to share truths without giving too much fodder for retaliation (but knowing some is inevitable) and trying not to slip up too badly in an “un-prepped” interview that would be watched by gabillions. Most of whom probably feel like she should behave like a proper princess.

That’s a pretty skinny balance beam.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Yeah, I am scratching my head at the claims that she is a narcissist. That term gets thrown around so much these days it is loosing its meaning.  It is a diagnosis and has a number of criteria that has to be met....all these commentators who claim to know that she is do not know her and do not have the authority to say such things.  I am certainly not an expert on Meghan.  But when people call her a gold digger it just seems so ridiculous.  She is a beautiful woman and has been in the realm of wealthy people for many years....if money was what she was after she would have chased that years ago,  she wasn’t some starving artist.  She had her own money.  
 

I personally only know one person who is likely a N. And I was her DIL for 26 years and knew her very very well.  I don’t begin to assume a person I don’t even know is a N.  

 

To me the more telling part is the people who worked with her on Suits are all defending her.  Sets are stressful environments, and Hollywood loves to gossip about bad behavior from actors.  The gossip about her is positive. She’s kind, considerate, and lovely to work with for more than five years, but put her in another environment and in less than two months she’s suddenly a raging narcissist who goes off on anyone and everyone?  No way.

More than likely there was some cultural misunderstanding, and someone (or multiple someones) on the staff was rubbed the wrong way. They decided to paint her as a narcissist, and they may have legitimately thought so if they are used to a culture of quiet decorum and knowing your place, and here comes an American actress who not only doesn’t have those values, but instead values authenticity.  Throw in pregnancy hormones, overt racism, and depression and almost anyone in her situation would interpret everything done to her in the worst possible way.

[SKL]

I doubt all the accusations against MM are fair, but why are people so ready to believe it was the Family who created and spread whatever wasn't true?  Isn't it more likely that palace staff or journalists made stuff up?  The RF knows that anything bad said about their relative (by marriage or otherwise) reflects badly on the whole family.

[Sneezyone]

20 minutes ago, SKL said:

I doubt all the accusations against MM are fair, but why are people so ready to believe it was the Family who created and spread whatever wasn't true?  Isn't it more likely that palace staff or journalists made stuff up?  The RF knows that anything bad said about their relative (by marriage or otherwise) reflects badly on the whole family.

It’s b/c there’s such an incestuous relationship between British tabloids and the royals. They rely on each other. Stories are leaked, fed, allowed to go unchallenged or, conversely, challenged based on the priorities, needs and preferences of the family/institution. The family/institution doesn’t have to create anything, they can also allow untruths to flourish and say nothing. That, too, is a choice and makes a statement. Bad press for the RF isn’t always bad. They need to both maintain the interest of people (and line the pockets of pseudo journalists) and the support of the public for the institution itself (public funds). Thus, having a scapegoat/scapegrace to generate publicity and sales and a cherubic monarch/heir apparent who can still bring home the public bacon is ideal. It’s PR 101. If no one is talking about you, you’re irrelevant. If they’re talking criminality, you’re a liability. If they’re talking made-up, lowbrow ‘scandal’ and ‘intrigue’, you’ve hit the sweet spot. Meanwhile, the close in line, direct heirs can have some measure of peace. It’s so transparent and ham handed that it might be funny under other circumstances. It’s the impacts on real, live people tho that make it sad, regardless if how wealthy they are.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s b/c there’s such an incestuous relationship between British tabloids and the royals. They rely on each other. Stories are leaked, fed, allowed to go unchallenged or, conversely, challenged based on the priorities, needs and preferences of the family/institution. The family/institution doesn’t have to create anything, they can also allow untruths to flourish and say nothing. That, too, is a choice and makes a statement. Bad press for the RF isn’t always bad. They need to both maintain the interest of people (and line the pockets of pseudo journalists) and the support of the public for the institution itself (public funds). Thus, having a scapegoat/scapegrace to generate publicity and sales and a cherubic monarch/heir apparent who can still bring home the public bacon is ideal.

Also some of the publicists hired to handle various situations with Diana, Fergie, and Charles’s siblings didn’t have non disclosure agreements and have openly discussed the decisions made by family members about how to spin information about other family members. It’s all a power game.

[hippymamato3]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

FTR he was Chinese and he liked my eyes.  He thought we could make babies with eyes like mine.  But nope.

You could though. I know plenty of people with blue eyes who had one or even two brown eyed parents. 

[Paige]

I don't think many Americans give a rat's behind about whether we have an American Duchess or anything like that. We're just shooting the breeze. If we defend her, it's because we think she's been treated poorly- not because we care if she's royal. 

 

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Paige said:

I don't think many Americans give a rat's behind about whether we have an American Duchess or anything like that. We're just shooting the breeze. If we defend her, it's because we think she's been treated poorly- not because we care if she's royal. 

 

Yep.  Pretty much sums it up for me.

[1234]

9 minutes ago, Paige said:

I don't think many Americans give a rat's behind about whether we have an American Duchess or anything like that. We're just shooting the breeze. If we defend her, it's because we think she's been treated poorly- not because we care if she's royal. 

 

Yes, for me there H&M drama is just a nice distraction from politics and Covid. I don’t care at all about anyone being royalty but I do think she has been treated rather awful (no matter who she is).

[SKL]

17 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

You could though. I know plenty of people with blue eyes who had one or even two brown eyed parents. 

Not really.  He was from China and never had a non-Chinese ancestor as far back as anyone knows.

Like other friends I have from Asia, the whole conversation around eye color was new to him when he immigrated to the US.  Back home, irises are simply brown, except in very rare exotic circumstances.  Kinda like the sclera is something near to white.

[Brown eye color is dominant, blue is recessive.  It's actually kind of surprising we have so many blue-eyed people in the world.]

Edited March 10, 2021 by SKL

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, hippymamato3 said:

You could though. I know plenty of people with blue eyes who had one or even two brown eyed parents. 

Yes. I knew a blond haired blue eyed girl with peaches and cream coloring whose biological mom was Japanese and Dad was British. 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

21 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Yes. I knew a blond haired blue eyed girl with peaches and cream coloring whose biological mom was Japanese and Dad was British. 

My husband and I are brown eyed, dark brown haired. Our daughter is also brown eyed, brown haired.

Both of our boys have blue eyes and blond hair. My dad has blue eyes and had blond hair as a child, but there was no one else. His mother was a dark skinned Eastern European, probably of Roma descent(I’ve had genetics done). In my husband’s family, there are no blue eyes or blond hair as far as anyone can remember. My kids are just a bundle of recessive genes.

 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

My husband and I are brown eyed, dark brown haired. Our daughter is also brown eyed, brown haired.

Both of our boys have blue eyes and blond hair. My dad has blue eyes and had blond hair as a child, but there was no one else. His mother was a dark skinned Eastern European, probably of Roma descent(I’ve had genetics done). In my husband’s family, there are no blue eyes or blond hair as far as anyone can remember. My kids are just a bundle of recessive genes.

 

My family darkens (hair and eyes) with age, lol. Both my parents had dark hair and eyes well before I was born, but I’ve seen their childhood pictures. I have a half-brother and one sister who retained blue eyes (as has my niece.) My eyes were brown by age 5, and my hair wasn’t quite blonde for much longer. I don’t know how naturally blonde my sisters are (or aren’t) at this point because bleach is a thing, lol.

3 of my kids had light eyes that darkened, and two are dirty blonds now. (Two were born with more Middle Eastern traits from their dad.)

Without knowing our weird color shifting history, no one would ever expect blue eyes to be possible. My sister is so weird! 🙂 

[Alicia64]

I haven't read the entire conversation, but it looks like you're talking about Harry. I've always loved Harry.

My thought is that the powers-that-be never had a DNA test because they didn't need to. They knew what the test would say.

[Scarlett]

35 minutes ago, Alicia64 said:

I haven't read the entire conversation, but it looks like you're talking about Harry. I've always loved Harry.

My thought is that the powers-that-be never had a DNA test because they didn't need to. They knew what the test would say.

Ha, that wasn't actually what we were talking about....but what do they think the test would say?

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

See, I think Harry looks very similar to Charles.  😆. It’s funny how so many people see different men in him.   I think he looks like dad.  🤷🏻‍♀️
 

I have to say I read an article this morning about meagan being suicidal and needing to go with Harry to some royal event because she was afraid to be alone.   I’ve been there.  My heart aches for her to have dealt with that publicly.   

I think he looks like Charles too  but he also favors Diana's brother.  

After being involved in genealogy for a while and seeing a lot of people do dna tests....I will say you just never know based on looks alone.

[Corraleno]

10 hours ago, Katy said:

I saw a news report yesterday that the general consensus in the UK is that young people believe her, even if they see the other side too, and older people are generally angry at her for saying anything to hurt the queen.  So perhaps the stand up to injustice ethic vs the “know your place” ethic is generational. 

I think once the queen dies and Charles becomes king, attitudes towards the royal family will change a lot, even among the older generation. Ten years from now, Charles will be in his 80s and as unpopular as ever, William and Kate will be a boring middle-aged couple, and their kids will all be teens, who are likely to get up to typical teen stuff that will serve as tabloid fodder.  I suspect that discussions about the "value for money" provided by the royal family will be rather different at that point. 

[Alicia64]

3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Ha, that wasn't actually what we were talking about....but what do they think the test would say?

Everyone, don't shoot! But I think the DNA would say James Hewitt. (Diana's bodyguard.) Ow! Ow! Ow! You're shooting!! I said don't shoot!!

 

[Corraleno]

3 hours ago, Alicia64 said:

Everyone, don't shoot! But I think the DNA would say James Hewitt. (Diana's bodyguard.) Ow! Ow! Ow! You're shooting!! I said don't shoot!!

 

Harry was conceived in 1983, when William was 18 months old, and long before the affair with Hewitt, whom Diana first met in 1986. He was not her bodyguard, he was an Army officer and riding instructor. Harry actually looks a lot like Prince Philip when he was younger:

[photo deleted by moderator, who doesn't know if magazine covers are against board rules but would rather be safe than sorry.]

 

[Alicia64]

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Harry was conceived in 1983, when William was 18 months old, and long before the affair with Hewitt, whom Diana first met in 1986. He was not her bodyguard, he was an Army officer and riding instructor. Harry actually looks a lot like Prince Philip when he was younger:

[photos deleted by moderator, who doesn't know if magazine covers are against board rules but would rather be safe than sorry.]

I know the story!! I still think that. . . well. Yeah, that's what I think.

Your puppy is so cute!!

[Katy]

[photos deleted by moderator]
 

He does look like a young Philip!

[klmama]

2 hours ago, Katy said:

[Photos deleted by moderator]
 

He does look like a young Philip!

Maybe that's why he's his grandma's favorite.  🙂  

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, klmama said:

Maybe that's why he's his grandma's favorite.  🙂  

That’s what I said! The last thing I want to do is link to a tabloid but there’s a while article comparing various pictures of them on Hello.

[SoCal_Bear]

I know some will not want to read this because it's Fox Business, but this is the only article I came across that comprehensively explains about security: who gets it, who pays for it, how much it cost, etc. 

I also saw in another article that Princess Diana refused security from the Palace and chose to pay for her own post divorce.

Being a Prince or Princess doesn't mean you get security apparently.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/what-members-royal-family-do-not-get-full-protection

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by calbear

[Rosie_0801]

15 hours ago, Katy said:

To me the more telling part is the people who worked with her on Suits are all defending her.  Sets are stressful environments, and Hollywood loves to gossip about bad behavior from actors.  The gossip about her is positive. She’s kind, considerate, and lovely to work with for more than five years, but put her in another environment and in less than two months she’s suddenly a raging narcissist who goes off on anyone and everyone?  No way.

I have no comment to make on the Duchess, but what you've just described as impossible seems entirely normal for the narcissists I know well. 

[Roadrunner]

2 hours ago, calbear said:

I know some will not want to read this because it's Fox Business, but this is the only article I came across that comprehensively explains about security: who gets it, who pays for it, how much it cost, etc. 

I also saw in another article that Princess Diana refused security from the Palace and chose to pay for her own post divorce.

Being a Prince or Princess doesn't mean you get security apparently.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/what-members-royal-family-do-not-get-full-protection

 

Wow. Unbelievable costs. No amount of Netflix is going to pay for that 🙂 

I guess the question is why they need security if other royals can live without. Is it because the negative press pushed the threat level higher for them? 
I can’t imagine why they think their son will be under threat as an adult. Surely they don’t think they will be in the spotlight forever? 
 

[katilac]

16 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Wow. Unbelievable costs. No amount of Netflix is going to pay for that 🙂 

I guess the question is why they need security if other royals can live without. Is it because the negative press pushed the threat level higher for them? 
I can’t imagine why they think their son will be under threat as an adult. Surely they don’t think they will be in the spotlight forever? 
 

I think they've had far more credible death threats than others, and they are far more known and recognizable worldwide. 

Harry's lived experience is that he has thus far been in the spotlight 'forever,' and it's probably hard for him to even imagine a different life for his son. I do think people are underestimating things when they say that H&M would quickly fade from public interest if they just led a quiet life. I don't see that happening for a very long time, no matter what decisions they make. 

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

I think they've had far more credible death threats than others, and they are far more known and recognizable worldwide. 

Harry's lived experience is that he has thus far been in the spotlight 'forever,' and it's probably hard for him to even imagine a different life for his son. I do think people are underestimating things when they say that H&M would quickly fade from public interest if they just led a quiet life. I don't see that happening for a very long time, no matter what decisions they make. 

What a crazy life to have to always look over your shoulder. 
I would think if Ann can live without protection, one day so can this couple. I can’t imagine paying such massive sums for security forever. Crazy. 
 

[katilac]

12 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

What a crazy life to have to always look over your shoulder. 
I would think if Ann can live without protection, one day so can this couple. I can’t imagine paying such massive sums for security forever. Crazy. 
 

I think they could someday (well, a lower level of protection, not sure about none) but that it will be a very long time. 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, calbear said:

I know some will not want to read this because it's Fox Business, but this is the only article I came across that comprehensively explains about security: who gets it, who pays for it, how much it cost, etc. 

I also saw in another article that Princess Diana refused security from the Palace and chose to pay for her own post divorce.

Being a Prince or Princess doesn't mean you get security apparently.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/what-members-royal-family-do-not-get-full-protection

 

Ppl seem to think the RF dole out security. It's a police matter, in the UK, and in recent (pre MM) times, it's been based on assessed need and not title. Hardly any Royals have 24/7 security - many have none, and some have will have it intermittently - at certain functions etc. It's not like everyone gets a bodyguard either. Security might mean a single unarmed policeman. At a particular time/event. 

Nobody's children were going to be denied protection from the Met if a security assessment indicated a serious and present threat. 

Leaving the UK is an issue re security, because it costs a heck of a lot more to have police flying out to Canada or wherever on 3 week rotations. 

Iirc Canada did not want to take on the cost of providing security themselves. 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Note, and slightly off-topic but I always say it when it comes up: It's King of the Belgians, not King of Belgium. He's king of the people, not the land on which they live.

[BusyMom5]

People can not like Megan and not be racist.  I think the color of her skin has little to do with it when compared to her attitude.   The Royal Family can dislike her way of treating Harry, the press,  the attitude toward her 'position' as a duchess, entitled attitude toward family money and title, her misunderstanding of tradition,  trashy family- there are so many things that I feel like trump her skin color.  I think she may be playing that up bx its the hot topic of today, while the real issues have been more cultural and personalities thar just don't get along.  

[BusyMom5]

1 hour ago, Dreamergal said:

How is she is 'treating' Harry ? Do tell ?

By all that I see he seems to be happy. Yet the royal reporters, according to press reports certain people in the palace and I do not know about the royal family  so I do not want to speculate  but all these  call him hostage. He took a vow to protect his wife, to form a family with her. It is according to the Bible, the law of the land and the Church of England of which his grandmother is head. Harry has seen combat, I think talk like this about how he is whipped. spineless is what makes Windsors seem out of touch. Will you allow your daughter's husband to pick his grandmother over her and decide if she should wear stockings, what color nail polish she should wear then those are some of Meghan's offences. It does not fly in the real world in both the East or West and it is controlling in any culture. 

As for her entitled attitude towards money, she has worked since she was 13. She had a successful career, she is a double major from North Western which is not an Ivy league but consistently ranked high. Prince Harry did not go to college.

This is how Meghan Markle was treated by the press. Female legislators stood up for her, the royals did not.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a29624675/meghan-markle-female-mps-letter-support/

Kate was called Waity Kate. Then again the royals never had the spine to protect their own blood family females like the York girls when they were bullied by the media for their weight and fashion, they never did anything wrong to be treated thus. Yet the Queen protects their father Prince Andrew. Meghan refused to put up with it. She should not have to and if you expect anyone to pay this as the price of being royal, this is 2021, she has full support from people who think it is wrong.

You want to talk trashy family, all the Markle's including Thomas and Samantha had nothing on Prince Charles unless this is your definition of classy.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a32461456/the-crown-prince-charles-camilla-tampon-comment/

I will say more, but you get the drift. The royals come across as petty, cruel, atrophied in their ways and selective protecting of even their blood family members and hypocrites in excusing crimes of their male members. This has nothing to do with race for me. It has everything to do with how this family treats their own blood family members and members who marry into them. Some are protected, others are disposable. It affected even Princess Margaret. It is a cruel world where birth order decides how ones life goes and even family members curtsey in private. It is enormously dysfunctional and there is enough evidence to see that long before Meghan arrived. 

If you are ok with your daughter being treated like this or a spouse who must put his family of origin first, I guess you are ok with the royals treating Meghan this way.

I feel like I either didn't write correctly or you misinterpreted everything I was trying to say.  I pay very little attention to the royal family or celebrities- I think its weird that we watch them the way we do.  My point was that while race seems to be the big thing being bandied about, bc its a current hot topic,  I think the royal family has issues with a lot more than skin color- like skin color is way down on their list of concerns in regard to Meghan, Harry, snd their kids.  I think the bigger chasm is between a culture clash (Hollywood vs prim and proper, American vs British), and personalities (Meghan is a more forceful woman that Camilla or Kate would ever dream of being, she isn't going to follow rules just because of tradition). 

As for my opinion- I don't have one.   I wish them all well.  I had hoped that Harry and Meghan would leave and make their own way in the world,  out of the spotlight.  I don't understand why they keep giving interviews if they said they wanted out.  Both sides clearly have a lot of baggage and do not understand each other.

I'm on a board for people who left their faith of origin,  and sometimes that means their families shun them or the relationship breaks down.  This feels very much the same way.  Two lifestyles clashing, one broke away,  and we who are part of neither are trying to argue which one is right.  Both are wrong to me.  There is no winner.  

[Selkie]

31 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

I apologize. I have lots of useless information as you can tell about this particular family, a lifetime infact. I get your point about different cultures and even agree, but in this family it is not about that. It is erasure of former self to fit in and I have seen too much evidence across generations to say otherwise. Kate was a girl who first got William's attention by dressing in a rather racy outfit for a fashion show, wore hot pants, pants regularly and now dresses like a grandmother and it is marvel when she wears pants. It is expected to look the other way when a man takes a mistress and it is the same for generations. Diana did not. I do not care to speculate about the marriage of Kate and William, but there are rumors which mysteriously disappeared on threat of legal action.

In my opinion, they are fighting the paparazzi, the media to get control over the invasive attention they get. They are winning that in many cases and the media and paparazzi have to pay damages and desist in many cases. It is needed for security I think of their family. It is not going to end any soon and if I were them, I would fight just as fiercely for my kids.

I agree partly about differences. But it was one sided for so long with a history of that in that family. To me, among the family there is no winner, but this is more than a family, with global influence and a history of colonization. Though Harry and Meghan did it for personal reasons, it has brought up issues that affect society and opened up conversations. That is a good thing to me. 

I hope the family reconciles, especially the two brothers. But both sides must do the work and it must be mutually beneficially. 

I'm only going to comment on one little part of your post, because Harry and Meghan have become a boring topic imo. I don't know where you got the idea that Kate Middleton rarely wears pants, but that is absolutely incorrect. She often wears them. I know this because I frequently see photos of her when reading British news.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Meghan and Harry want to live a life of public service.  While they are correct in their response to the Queen that everyone can live a life of service, they really can do more for charities because of their celebrity because they bring a spotlight on those charities that they support.  So they are straddling a line of wanting privacy while also needing some positive press in order to maintain the kind of positive influence that they want to have.  I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.  And I don't think that wanting to make a distinction between their public influence and their private life is hypocritical or anything.

[Murphy101]

On 3/10/2021 at 4:26 PM, Corraleno said:

I think once the queen dies and Charles becomes king, attitudes towards the royal family will change a lot, even among the older generation. Ten years from now, Charles will be in his 80s and as unpopular as ever, William and Kate will be a boring middle-aged couple, and their kids will all be teens, who are likely to get up to typical teen stuff that will serve as tabloid fodder.  I suspect that discussions about the "value for money" provided by the royal family will be rather different at that point. 

It would not surprise me if it skips over Charles  to William. 

On 3/11/2021 at 12:49 AM, Roadrunner said:

Wow. Unbelievable costs. No amount of Netflix is going to pay for that 🙂 

I guess the question is why they need security if other royals can live without. Is it because the negative press pushed the threat level higher for them? 
I can’t imagine why they think their son will be under threat as an adult. Surely they don’t think they will be in the spotlight forever? 
 

Well they seem to be planning to make sure they stay in the spotlight - so apparently. But if that’s what they want to do - fine. They can do it on their own dime. I do not blame Canada or the USA or UK or The Firm for not wanting to foot the security bill for people not functioning in an official government capacity.  If Harry and Meagan were too stupid to see the valid reasoning if that, despite being told repeatedly, that’s on them. And while I’m sure there’s plenty of racism all around, I do not think that decision on security in itself is unreasonable or racist. 

On 3/11/2021 at 5:03 PM, Jean in Newcastle said:

Meghan and Harry want to live a life of public service.  While they are correct in their response to the Queen that everyone can live a life of service, they really can do more for charities because of their celebrity because they bring a spotlight on those charities that they support.  So they are straddling a line of wanting privacy while also needing some positive press in order to maintain the kind of positive influence that they want to have.  I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.  And I don't think that wanting to make a distinction between their public influence and their private life is hypocritical or anything.

Meh. They want to profit off his royalty.  There’s nothing stopping them from public service. They aren’t exactly slumming it being paid to “bring (pseudo royal) attention” to causes. 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Murphy101

[Tanaqui]

Listen, the British Royals are some of the wealthiest people in the world. They personally own, what, half of all the land in England?

If my beloved family member needed personal security because of their relationship to me, and I could afford to hire personal security for them, I'd do it! In a heartbeat, without asking for some sort of quid pro quo. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't [i]anybody[/i]?

I do not believe that the British Royal Family is so cash-strapped that they couldn't extend security to Harry and his married family. That's an absolutely ludicrous suggestion. For them, this is practically petty cash.

[Melissa in Australia]

I would rather be part of the commonwealth and have the Queen as my head of government and live in a democracy than the from the outside completely dysfunctional Republic you guys live in

I really like the Queen. We could all fling mud at any family

[Melissa Louise]

Harry's not that cash strapped himself. I'm sorry, but I don't want to hear about the plight of someone who has inherited millions of pounds.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

I would rather be part of the commonwealth and have the Queen as my head of government and live in a democracy than the from the outside completely dysfunctional Republic you guys live in

I really like the Queen. We could all fling mud at any family

I would rather we just moved to having a GG once Elizabeth dies, but it's really such a third order issue. I can't imagine, with everything facing us - hello fire! hello floods! - putting a skerrick of energy into a new referendum. 

[Melissa in Australia]

6 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I would rather we just moved to having a GG once Elizabeth dies, but it's really such a third order issue. I can't imagine, with everything facing us - hello fire! hello floods! - putting a skerrick of energy into a new referendum. 

I agree that there is too much else going on

 But I would rather a democracy with a constitutional monarchy over a Republic any day. 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Melissa in Australia

[Melissa in Australia]

Dreamer you left India, you are no longer part of the commonwealth. You have made your choice. Others here are still part of the commonwealth are pleased to have the Queen as Head and are getting a tad tired of all the mudflinging 

 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

Listen, the British Royals are some of the wealthiest people in the world. They personally own, what, half of all the land in England?

If my beloved family member needed personal security because of their relationship to me, and I could afford to hire personal security for them, I'd do it! In a heartbeat, without asking for some sort of quid pro quo. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't [i]anybody[/i]?

I do not believe that the British Royal Family is so cash-strapped that they couldn't extend security to Harry and his married family. That's an absolutely ludicrous suggestion. For them, this is practically petty cash.

It seems to me the BRF is willing to treat H&M the same as all the other royal family that are not acting in an official capacity to the BRF or the UK govt.  And H&M don’t seem to think that is good enough.     While I might be willing to help for the sake of helping, I don’t think anyone of any station or income likes to feel manipulated or used just for their personal banking services either.  It seems to me the firm has been used by BRF as a method of separating finances from family.  Most likely specifically to avoid such strife. Seems to me, H&M are just pissy about having to spend some of their own mega wealth. Which just gets nada for sympathy from me. 

1 hour ago, Melissa in Australia said:

I would rather be part of the commonwealth and have the Queen as my head of government and live in a democracy than the from the outside completely dysfunctional Republic you guys live in

I really like the Queen. We could all fling mud at any family

Gotta admit it looked appealing for 4 recent years in my neck of the woods too. 😁

41 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Here is the latest on the Harry and Meghan saga. 

Relevant portion

According to a report published Thursday by the BBC, Daniel Hanks was hired by the Sun to obtain private details about the former Meghan Markle. He provided the media outlet with the duchess’ phone number, addresses and Social Security number, in addition to intel on her family, ex-husband and a former boyfriend.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-03-19/prince-harry-meghan-markle-private-investigator-sun-bbc

I cannot say in polite words how I feel about this. A tabloid got hold of information just for dating Harry. Meghan did nothing then. Harry was already a victim of phone hacking as a teen and the royals did nothing. Piers Morgan was a tabloid editor then. 

Why the hell should they keep silent ? 

If Harry and Meghan want to go to war on the tabloids, I say go for it. I will do the same.

I completely agree tabloids have gone freakin nuts and I’m glad H&M won their court case.  I’m not sure what the royal family was supposed to do about it. It’s not like they don’t have the same issues and have never taken tabloids to court too.  Because the bottom line is all except one aspect of what was done to her is done to millions of Americans every day and sold to data companies with their consent. Because for me the most relevant quote from that article is this glaring issue.  That these tabloids are simply making use of completely legal data for them to access:

Hanks added that he accessed most of the data legally — except the Social Security number

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Murphy101

[Roadrunner]

What I see in this situation is the monarchy is very much in place by ensuring people’s goodwill which is generated through press. So for them, the key is to make sure William and Kate (since the throne is heading that way) are beloved by public and if they have to feed others to the wolves in the process, so be it. So daily there is dumb press being generated about beautiful and graceful Kate (I am sure she is lovely, not arguing that), and the palace corrects things to keep that image intact. They didn’t care the image of Meagan because let’s be frank, Harry/Meagan circus just made the other couple look better. I don’t see why else they couldn’t correct false stories, because obviously they do correct it for others. 
overall, I find the entire royal circus a bit ridiculous in the 21st century. You would think by now nobody would be kneeling to another human being. 

[Murphy101]

30 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

The Royals have a relationship with the tabloids. It is an open secret, long before Meghan came into the picture. Even Diana collaborated with someone who is currently employed by the Daily Mail. They have asked the tabloids like when William was in Scotland studying to back off and they did. Prince Edward who had a media company violated that and Prince Charles was furious. 

William and Harry were hacked as teens. Nothing was done. Eugenie and Beatrice were dragged through the media for weight and fashion when they were teens. Nothing was done. If the media paid half the attention to Prince Andrew, lots of things would come out. It is widely written in the media that the Queen protects him and it would not be the same when Prince Charles is King. There are rumors about William that disappeared.

Point is, the royals are a ruthless family who protect favorites and throw everyone else related either through birth or marriage to the wolves which is the tabloids. They hide serious things by frivolous distraction. Harry and Meghan are taking on the tabloids and not playing the game.

Harry is suing the tabloids for the phone hacking scandal now. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49940905

Meh. So wealthy people can buy access to more privacy with hush money?  Like... since forever everywhere? Color me not even slightly surprised.

I’ve no issue with H&M suing the tabloids. Good luck to them.

I can’t tell if you are ticked off bc the BRF has been paying hush money to the tabloids or if you are ticked off only when they don’t do it when you personally think they should.

People get hacked every day and most can’t afford to do anything about it.

 

[Melissa Louise]

Trickle down justice? Hmm.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Yep. You and I as women living in different countries are not considered property and have the right to an education, own property, vote. All are a reality because women in a different time and in a different country fought for that. 

I truly believe in trickle down effect because I have seen it happen in my life time.

Idk about India, but we didn't get the vote here because it 'trickled down' to us. 

A celebrity in one country suing a tabloid in another has nothing to do with me in a third. 

This is really overstating the impact of how wealthy ppl use courts to protect their reputations.