|
Post by AZChristian on Mar 8, 2021 15:19:57 GMT
And another thought . . . if they agreed ahead of time that "everything is open for discussion," why did they only discuss the struggles with Harry's family? Not a word about Meghan's family (and their opinions of her).
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 8, 2021 15:30:32 GMT
I'm not going to lie - I think a little less of Oprah after the interview. She's always gotten a bad rap for being too soft on celebrities, and I think she did it here. Perhaps they did not review questions before hand - but it certainly seemed that Meghan and Harry let it be known what they wanted to talk about and she obliged. I think she's WAY smarter and knew the follow up questions that could have / should have been asked - such as why they thought Archie would get a title and security when they could see that Anne and Edward's kids did not, and he was more like them than like George, Charlotte and Louis.
I think my big take away from the interview is that the compassionate thing for a monarch to do is to have more than two children. It was probably easier on Anne, Andrew and Edward to have each other and see that special treatment for Charles was because of birth order and not favoritism. Who knows - it's possible that William and Kate have three kids so that Charlotte would not have to go through that growing up and being out of the spotlight alone. I get it - it would really suck to go through childhood thinking you were part of the in crowd, and then suddenly as an adult being told it was the end of the road for you while your sibling went on to get more. But that's the reality of Harry's family, and not some cruel rejection of Meghan.
|
|
|
Post by FireWoman on Mar 8, 2021 15:42:30 GMT
I'm not going to lie - I think a little less of Oprah after the interview. She's always gotten a bad rap for being too soft on celebrities, and I think she did it here. Perhaps they did not review questions before hand - but it certainly seemed that Meghan and Harry let it be known what they wanted to talk about and she obliged. I think she's WAY smarter and knew the follow up questions that could have / should have been asked - such as why they thought Archie would get a title and security when they could see that Anne and Edward's kids did not, and he was more like them than like George, Charlotte and Louis. I think my big take away from the interview is that the compassionate thing for a monarch to do is to have more than two children. It was probably easier on Anne, Andrew and Edward to have each other and see that special treatment for Charles was because of birth order and not favoritism. Who knows - it's possible that William and Kate have three kids so that Charlotte would not have to go through that growing up and being out of the spotlight alone. I get it - it would really suck to go through childhood thinking you were part of the in crowd, and then suddenly as an adult being told it was the end of the road for you while your sibling went on to get more. But that's the reality of Harry's family, and not some cruel rejection of Meghan. This one struck me as well. I know that Edward's kids DO have title, Viscount and Lady like Andrew's daughters have Princess, but Anne's kids and grand-kids do not, just like Edward's grandson, August has no title. I can fully understand why William's kids do, he/they are direct line of succession. I also recall that they said it was THEIR choice to not title Archie so that he could lead a normal life. I could be wrong and frankly do not have all the time in the world atm to look it up.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 8, 2021 15:47:27 GMT
Yes, my recollection is that it was reported that Anne and Edward chose for their kids to not have titles (Edward's kids having titles of nobility rather than royalty). I also recall it being reported that Andrew threw a fit over his daughters being called Princess (same with wanting a huge wedding similar to Charles and Diana instead of a more low key affair). It's been said so many times that Andrew is the Queens favorite child that it makes sense she would have obliged his commands. But it's also been long reported that once he becomes King, Charles has a desire to shrink the number of working royals. So it seems to me the writing was on the wall for Harry long before he met Meghan - and he just didn't want to read it. Who knows, maybe he figured that as the favorite grandson he could throw an Andrew-type fit and get the title for his kids too? But of course, and the time that he would have been throwing that fit, the Palace was feeling the impact of appeasing Andrew all those years, and probably found it was not worth it!
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 8, 2021 16:31:10 GMT
I'm not going to lie - I think a little less of Oprah after the interview. She's always gotten a bad rap for being too soft on celebrities, and I think she did it here. Perhaps they did not review questions before hand - but it certainly seemed that Meghan and Harry let it be known what they wanted to talk about and she obliged. I think she's WAY smarter and knew the follow up questions that could have / should have been asked - such as why they thought Archie would get a title and security when they could see that Anne and Edward's kids did not, and he was more like them than like George, Charlotte and Louis. I think my big take away from the interview is that the compassionate thing for a monarch to do is to have more than two children. It was probably easier on Anne, Andrew and Edward to have each other and see that special treatment for Charles was because of birth order and not favoritism. Who knows - it's possible that William and Kate have three kids so that Charlotte would not have to go through that growing up and being out of the spotlight alone. I get it - it would really suck to go through childhood thinking you were part of the in crowd, and then suddenly as an adult being told it was the end of the road for you while your sibling went on to get more. But that's the reality of Harry's family, and not some cruel rejection of Meghan. This one struck me as well. I know that Edward's kids DO have title, Viscount and Lady like Andrew's daughters have Princess, but Anne's kids and grand-kids do not, just like Edward's grandson, August has no title. I can fully understand why William's kids do, he/they are direct line of succession. I also recall that they said it was THEIR choice to not title Archie so that he could lead a normal life. I could be wrong and frankly do not have all the time in the world atm to look it up. Archie was entitled to the "courtesy title," Earl of Dumbarton. However, the couple announced shortly after his birth that they had not given him a courtesy title .
|
|
|
Post by FireWoman on Mar 8, 2021 17:26:12 GMT
Yes, my recollection is that it was reported that Anne and Edward chose for their kids to not have titles (Edward's kids having titles of nobility rather than royalty). I also recall it being reported that Andrew threw a fit over his daughters being called Princess (same with wanting a huge wedding similar to Charles and Diana instead of a more low key affair). It's been said so many times that Andrew is the Queens favorite child that it makes sense she would have obliged his commands. But it's also been long reported that once he becomes King, Charles has a desire to shrink the number of working royals. So it seems to me the writing was on the wall for Harry long before he met Meghan - and he just didn't want to read it. Who knows, maybe he figured that as the favorite grandson he could throw an Andrew-type fit and get the title for his kids too? But of course, and the time that he would have been throwing that fit, the Palace was feeling the impact of appeasing Andrew all those years, and probably found it was not worth it! Yes, Andrew did 'throw a fit' and he is Her Majesty's fave after all so of course he would get what he wanted, lol. With Edward, he will be named Duke of Edinburgh after the passing of both his parents so his title was given to hold a place for the time when he will become Duke of Edinburgh. (Ugh, so confusing lol)
Yes FannyMare Archie was 'offered,' according to many outlets, the courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton.. if that was not the case I am sure that there would have been SOME points made about that in the press or by the palace to make it clear.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 8, 2021 17:42:16 GMT
Yes, my recollection is that it was reported that Anne and Edward chose for their kids to not have titles (Edward's kids having titles of nobility rather than royalty). I also recall it being reported that Andrew threw a fit over his daughters being called Princess (same with wanting a huge wedding similar to Charles and Diana instead of a more low key affair). It's been said so many times that Andrew is the Queens favorite child that it makes sense she would have obliged his commands. But it's also been long reported that once he becomes King, Charles has a desire to shrink the number of working royals. So it seems to me the writing was on the wall for Harry long before he met Meghan - and he just didn't want to read it. Who knows, maybe he figured that as the favorite grandson he could throw an Andrew-type fit and get the title for his kids too? But of course, and the time that he would have been throwing that fit, the Palace was feeling the impact of appeasing Andrew all those years, and probably found it was not worth it! We always thought Edward was the queens favorite, when I lived in the UK, he was always so close to the queen and the queen mother. The Crown is now the go to for everything royal I guess. My sil said she didn't watch, she wanted to give them the privacy they asked for...
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Mar 8, 2021 18:16:55 GMT
Yes, my recollection is that it was reported that Anne and Edward chose for their kids to not have titles (Edward's kids having titles of nobility rather than royalty). I also recall it being reported that Andrew threw a fit over his daughters being called Princess (same with wanting a huge wedding similar to Charles and Diana instead of a more low key affair). It's been said so many times that Andrew is the Queens favorite child that it makes sense she would have obliged his commands. But it's also been long reported that once he becomes King, Charles has a desire to shrink the number of working royals. So it seems to me the writing was on the wall for Harry long before he met Meghan - and he just didn't want to read it. Who knows, maybe he figured that as the favorite grandson he could throw an Andrew-type fit and get the title for his kids too? But of course, and the time that he would have been throwing that fit, the Palace was feeling the impact of appeasing Andrew all those years, and probably found it was not worth it! We always thought Edward was the queens favorite, when I lived in the UK, he was always so close to the queen and the queen mother. The Crown is now the go to for everything royal I guess. My sil said she didn't watch, she wanted to give them the privacy they asked for... The sense I got from a lot of that interview is that M&H think it's THEIR job to tell people how they should behave towards them. If M&H tell people that the interview does not invade their privacy, then everyone HAS to watch the interview. That whole mess about Archie not having a title was yet another example of M&H's selective memories. The queen made him the Earl of Dumbarton. His mummy and daddy opted not to remember that when they were bashing the BRF during the interview. And her comparing herself to Ariel from "The Little Mermaid" ("when she married the prince, she lost her voice") made me want to puke. Ariel was already a princess. She made a bargain in which she voluntarily gave up her voice to have a shot at winning her human prince. There was NO similarity in the stories between Meghan and Ariel . . . but if Meghan says it, it must be so. (Or not.) I almost expect there to be a director who wanted to reshoot some of the interview scenes. "Meghan can you look shocked when Oprah says that?" Or, "Meghan, remember how sad you looked when the interviewer in Africa asked you how you were doing? Can you try to look that sad again during this interview?" "Meghan, can you gaze adoringly at Harry." Honestly, at one point he said, "She was such an amazing asset for the British Royal Family" and I thought he said she was "an amazing actress." The woman was . . . and is . . . an actress. She thought that by acting like a princess in front of the cameras, she would be treated like one. Unfortunately, when the cameras weren't on, she apparently stopped acting like a princess and turned back into her self-entitled self.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 8, 2021 19:36:21 GMT
I didn't watch it all( I may, it hasn't been deleted) As far as title goes - and protection - Archie is a great grandchild of the sovereign and as such doesn't get a title of Prince until his grandfather, Charles, becomes king. Eugenie, Harry's first cousin, just had a baby and he has no title. That baby is equivalent to Archie in relationship to the Queen. Beatrix and Eugenie, Andrew's daughters, are called Princess because their dad is son of the Queen - but they get no salary nor protection. Neither will their children get it. My take on it is - a lot of lack of knowledge of the workings of titles/history/customs and a lot of hurt feelings and poor communication on both sides, perhaps. A couple of things I find hard to believe - Meghan did no research on the Royal family and didn't know who Harry was.??, Everyone knew about Diana and who her sons are, everyone. She is an actress who must prepare for roles. She would have researched. There is internet. Find it unbelievable a bright woman like her wouldn't look at old newsreels, books, etc. I also find it unbelievable that someone took her keys and passport and drivers license. I see Kate and William driving around all the time, and other members of the Royal Family. Why would they take her documents and not let her have them? I also find it disturbing that if she were suicidal, her husband, who works with mental health agencies, wouldn't call someone to help her, his mother received help and medication for Depression. Perhaps what happened was, she asked the HR department if counselling sessions were paid for and they said no, you aren't an employee. Possible? Misinterpretation? Who knows. My take on it is, the most anger is that they were cut off from their allowance. Hard to get sympathy for adults in their late 30s to complain about just living off their inheritances. Of course the tabloid press would have been insufferable, and an intrusion, but they are hardly living a life out of the limelight now, and I very much doubt they will.
|
|
|
Post by FireWoman on Mar 8, 2021 19:45:55 GMT
I didn't watch it all( I may, it hasn't been deleted) As far as title goes - and protection - Archie is a great grandchild of the sovereign and as such doesn't get a title of Prince until his grandfather, Charles, becomes king. Eugenie, Harry's first cousin, just had a baby and he has no title. That baby is equivalent to Archie in relationship to the Queen. Beatrix and Eugenie, Andrew's daughters, are called Princess because their dad is son of the Queen - but they get no salary nor protection. Neither will their children get it. My take on it is - a lot of lack of knowledge of the workings of titles/history/customs and a lot of hurt feelings and poor communication on both sides, perhaps. A couple of things I find hard to believe - Meghan did no research on the Royal family and didn't know who Harry was.??, Everyone knew about Diana and who her sons are, everyone. She is an actress who must prepare for roles. She would have researched. There is internet. Find it unbelievable a bright woman like her wouldn't look at old newsreels, books, etc. I also find it unbelievable that someone took her keys and passport and drivers license. I see Kate and William driving around all the time, and other members of the Royal Family. Why would they take her documents and not let her have them? I also find it disturbing that if she were suicidal, her husband, who works with mental health agencies, wouldn't call someone to help her, his mother received help and medication for Depression. Perhaps what happened was, she asked the HR department if counselling sessions were paid for and they said no, you aren't an employee. Possible? Misinterpretation? Who knows. My take on it is, the most anger is that they were cut off from their allowance. Hard to get sympathy for adults in their late 30s to complain about just living off their inheritances. Of course the tabloid press would have been insufferable, and an intrusion, but they are hardly living a life out of the limelight now, and I very much doubt they will. My dear Fanny girl, you are right. I always say there are 3 sides to every story: Yours. Mine. And the truth. Now I have not watched it yet.. I was planing on it today and likely will with a friend so we can text out play-by-play to one another (like we do for the political debates and such, lol) but reading what I have and seeing the snips I saw.. I think Oprah has it right when she asked her 'what is your truth' and yes, I know what she means but I think the general meaning is spot on. This was their truth, and I am sure the BRF has theirs (which I am sure we will never hear) and what is in the middle of both holds far more truthful information than either side does on their own.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 8, 2021 19:56:20 GMT
I didn't watch it all( I may, it hasn't been deleted) As far as title goes - and protection - Archie is a great grandchild of the sovereign and as such doesn't get a title of Prince until his grandfather, Charles, becomes king. Eugenie, Harry's first cousin, just had a baby and he has no title. That baby is equivalent to Archie in relationship to the Queen. Beatrix and Eugenie, Andrew's daughters, are called Princess because their dad is son of the Queen - but they get no salary nor protection. Neither will their children get it. My take on it is - a lot of lack of knowledge of the workings of titles/history/customs and a lot of hurt feelings and poor communication on both sides, perhaps. A couple of things I find hard to believe - Meghan did no research on the Royal family and didn't know who Harry was.??, Everyone knew about Diana and who her sons are, everyone. She is an actress who must prepare for roles. She would have researched. There is internet. Find it unbelievable a bright woman like her wouldn't look at old newsreels, books, etc. I also find it unbelievable that someone took her keys and passport and drivers license. I see Kate and William driving around all the time, and other members of the Royal Family. Why would they take her documents and not let her have them? I also find it disturbing that if she were suicidal, her husband, who works with mental health agencies, wouldn't call someone to help her, his mother received help and medication for Depression. Perhaps what happened was, she asked the HR department if counselling sessions were paid for and they said no, you aren't an employee. Possible? Misinterpretation? Who knows. My take on it is, the most anger is that they were cut off from their allowance. Hard to get sympathy for adults in their late 30s to complain about just living off their inheritances. Of course the tabloid press would have been insufferable, and an intrusion, but they are hardly living a life out of the limelight now, and I very much doubt they will. I'd add just one thing to your point about it being hard to get sympathy - it's hard to get sympathy about being cut off from your allowance when the reason you were is that you said you were not willing to do the job you had the way you'd been asked to do it!
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 8, 2021 20:53:41 GMT
I love Kacie Hunt's tweet:
Prince Harry alluded to this, but it’s true — his marrying Meghan was a once in a generation opportunity to bring the monarchy into the 21st century and embrace a new version of the family that the modern world could embrace and love
They didn’t just fail. They spat on it
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 8, 2021 21:04:11 GMT
It baffles me that so much of the American press has accepted everything that Meghan and Harry said without a bit of fact checking or questioning it. The untruths that have been turned out so far -
- The claim that Archie was not given a title and implication it was because of his mother's race - when in truth he was offered the title of Earl and his parents declined it. - The claim that it was a shock he would not be given security when it is the norm for great grandchildren of the sovereign to not get security - The claim that the BRF did nothing to protect Meghan after reports of the fight between Meghan and Kate when Kensington Palace issued a statement that it was not true - The claim that they got married a few days ahead of their wedding which was quickly disputed saying they exchanged vows but were not legally married until May 19
I can't lie - I give a second look to the reporting of reporters who hear all those things and believe them and jump on the bandwagon to offer their sympathy and care. How many lies are they falling for from other sources?
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 8, 2021 23:48:43 GMT
And another thought . . . if they agreed ahead of time that "everything is open for discussion," why did they only discuss the struggles with Harry's family? Not a word about Meghan's family (and their opinions of her). They didn't. They actually had a very good conversation about her family, and that aired this morning. link
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Mar 8, 2021 23:55:40 GMT
And another thought . . . if they agreed ahead of time that "everything is open for discussion," why did they only discuss the struggles with Harry's family? Not a word about Meghan's family (and their opinions of her). They didn't. They actually had a very good conversation about her family, and that aired this morning. linkI saw that after my original post.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Mar 9, 2021 2:23:16 GMT
Yes, my recollection is that it was reported that Anne and Edward chose for their kids to not have titles (Edward's kids having titles of nobility rather than royalty). I also recall it being reported that Andrew threw a fit over his daughters being called Princess (same with wanting a huge wedding similar to Charles and Diana instead of a more low key affair). It's been said so many times that Andrew is the Queens favorite child that it makes sense she would have obliged his commands. But it's also been long reported that once he becomes King, Charles has a desire to shrink the number of working royals. So it seems to me the writing was on the wall for Harry long before he met Meghan - and he just didn't want to read it. Who knows, maybe he figured that as the favorite grandson he could throw an Andrew-type fit and get the title for his kids too? But of course, and the time that he would have been throwing that fit, the Palace was feeling the impact of appeasing Andrew all those years, and probably found it was not worth it! We always thought Edward was the queens favorite, when I lived in the UK, he was always so close to the queen and the queen mother. The Crown is now the go to for everything royal I guess. My sil said she didn't watch, she wanted to give them the privacy they asked for... We always thought Edward was/is The Favorite along with Sophie being the favorite daughter-in-law.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Mar 9, 2021 2:34:57 GMT
It's Edward and Sophie who are the Queens favorites because they carry out all their royal duties and then some gladly, w/o complaint. She s never had to worry about them or their children.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 9, 2021 18:23:38 GMT
Bullying claim about Meghan, BP responds:
"We are clearly very concerned about allegations in 'The Times' following claims made by former staff of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Accordingly our HR team will look into the circumstances outlined in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the Household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learned.
The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work police in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace."
Meghan & Harry's claim about racism, BP responds:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan," the statement reads.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately."
The statement adds: "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
Kinda leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 9, 2021 18:30:18 GMT
Not really. To be honest, it makes sense to me that the BRF would be more disturbed by family members setting out to say negative things about other family members as opposed to former employees doing the same thing in a more quiet way.
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Mar 9, 2021 21:48:10 GMT
Bullying claim about Meghan, BP responds: "We are clearly very concerned about allegations in 'The Times' following claims made by former staff of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Accordingly our HR team will look into the circumstances outlined in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the Household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learned. The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work police in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace." Meghan & Harry's claim about racism, BP responds: "The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan," the statement reads. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately." The statement adds: "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members." Kinda leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? I saw that this morning. Looks to me like a statement carefully crafted by an excellent PR firm. No real defense towards anything Meghan & Harry said. No acknowledgement that anything is off or wrong. No denial either. No criticism of Meghan or Harry. Nothing really said at all, while making it look like there is. Seemingly proclaiming concern, while not saying why or about what. We've seen it before many times. Typical British Royal Family PR at it's finest. They have the procedure down to a fine science. Say nothing while making it look like you are.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 9, 2021 21:51:17 GMT
They have a rule of "never complain, never explain" for a reason!
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 9, 2021 21:59:52 GMT
It's a cult.
Meghan Markle/The Firm = Katie Holmes/Scientology
Eyes are wide open now thanks to strong, independent, courageous women.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 9, 2021 22:19:15 GMT
They have a rule of "never complain, never explain" for a reason! Interesting hearing what's been said in the UK. Race and mental health. Nobody seems to have a clue who would of brought up the color of the child, but they aren't happy about it. As for Meghan's mental health, the RF have the best doctors in the country, and wonder why Harry didn't make sure Meghan saw someone. As someone that deals with depression, I'm glad my husband helped me when he saw me struggling, Nothing much else said about Meghan, except there never was a secret wedding three days before her huge wedding the RF were only too glad to pay for. No witnesses, so maybe she got it muddled with something else. Everyone was very happy when Harry was engaged and happy, then the wedding. People do wonder if Harry is in touch with the queen, why he didn't bring her up to speed, rather than a tell all on Oprah. He's supposed to be in the UK end of this year, and while the public are usually very glad to see him, on the radio call in shows, people no longer care if he comes or not. If they wanted to bring down the RF, Harkle the duke and duchess of Netflix, have made a damn good start. 17 million tuned in north America, not that many bothered with it in the UK. Friends of mine watched the highlites, felt sad that Meghan didn't get help, and actually blamed Harry.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 9, 2021 22:24:39 GMT
They have a rule of "never complain, never explain" for a reason! Interesting hearing what's been said in the UK. Race and mental health. Nobody seems to have a clue who would of brought up the color of the child, but they aren't happy about it. As for Meghan's mental health, the RF have the best doctors in the country, and wonder why Harry didn't make sure Meghan saw someone. As someone that deals with depression, I'm glad my husband helped me when he saw me struggling, Nothing much else said about Meghan, except there never was a secret wedding three days before her huge wedding the RF were only too glad to pay for. No witnesses, so maybe she got it muddled with something else. Everyone was very happy when Harry was engaged and happy, then the wedding. People do wonder if Harry is in touch with the queen, why he didn't bring her up to speed, rather than a tell all on Oprah. He's supposed to be in the UK end of this year, and while the public are usually very glad to see him, on the radio call in shows, people no longer care if he comes or not. If they wanted to bring down the RF, Harkle the duke and duchess of Netflix, have made a damn good start. 17 million tuned in north America, not that many bothered with it in the UK. Friends of mine watched the highlites, felt sad that Meghan didn't get help, and actually blamed Harry. That was definitely one of the parts of the interview where I wish Oprah had asked more follow up questions instead of just accepting what was being said as it was. It would have to be delicate as there is no room for doubting a person's mental health - but I think Oprah has the skill to navigate that. But when you consider as you said the BRF has access to the very best doctors, Harry/Meghan/Kate/William's first joint effort was dealing with mental health, Harry has said he's been in therapy and Charles says he has been in therapy, Meghan was pregnant at the time therefore getting regular checkups with a doctor trained to monitor for mental wellness as it can be impacted by hormone shifts - I think it would help to have more information on what Meghan was not given help for. I heard someone speculate that perhaps what she wanted was to publicly go away to a facility, and was being told that it had to be kept private.
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Mar 9, 2021 23:00:56 GMT
They have a rule of "never complain, never explain" for a reason! Interesting hearing what's been said in the UK. Race and mental health. Nobody seems to have a clue who would of brought up the color of the child, but they aren't happy about it. As for Meghan's mental health, the RF have the best doctors in the country, and wonder why Harry didn't make sure Meghan saw someone. As someone that deals with depression, I'm glad my husband helped me when he saw me struggling, Nothing much else said about Meghan, except there never was a secret wedding three days before her huge wedding the RF were only too glad to pay for. No witnesses, so maybe she got it muddled with something else. Everyone was very happy when Harry was engaged and happy, then the wedding. People do wonder if Harry is in touch with the queen, why he didn't bring her up to speed, rather than a tell all on Oprah. He's supposed to be in the UK end of this year, and while the public are usually very glad to see him, on the radio call in shows, people no longer care if he comes or not. If they wanted to bring down the RF, Harkle the duke and duchess of Netflix, have made a damn good start. 17 million tuned in north America, not that many bothered with it in the UK. Friends of mine watched the highlites, felt sad that Meghan didn't get help, and actually blamed Harry. Maybe he did, to some extent. The Queen has always admittedly had a policy of not giving her opinion on darned near anything. Opinions aren't appropriate for the person representing the Monarchy. There's always been an "ignore it & it will go away" attitude. The things I've learned watching The Crown.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 9, 2021 23:11:52 GMT
Interesting hearing what's been said in the UK. Race and mental health. Nobody seems to have a clue who would of brought up the color of the child, but they aren't happy about it. As for Meghan's mental health, the RF have the best doctors in the country, and wonder why Harry didn't make sure Meghan saw someone. As someone that deals with depression, I'm glad my husband helped me when he saw me struggling, Nothing much else said about Meghan, except there never was a secret wedding three days before her huge wedding the RF were only too glad to pay for. No witnesses, so maybe she got it muddled with something else. Everyone was very happy when Harry was engaged and happy, then the wedding. People do wonder if Harry is in touch with the queen, why he didn't bring her up to speed, rather than a tell all on Oprah. He's supposed to be in the UK end of this year, and while the public are usually very glad to see him, on the radio call in shows, people no longer care if he comes or not. If they wanted to bring down the RF, Harkle the duke and duchess of Netflix, have made a damn good start. 17 million tuned in north America, not that many bothered with it in the UK. Friends of mine watched the highlites, felt sad that Meghan didn't get help, and actually blamed Harry. Maybe he did, to some extent. The Queen has always admittedly had a policy of not giving her opinion on darned near anything. Opinions aren't appropriate for the person representing the Monarchy. There's always been an "ignore it & it will go away" attitude. The things I've learned watching The Crown. The crown is very hollyweird, imnsho. There's a grain of truth I suppose, but I don't take it for gospel. Have they mentioned the institution once on the crown? Possibly because they have no idea...lol The queen has served her country well, she's well thought, especially in commonwealth countries such as mine.,
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 10, 2021 0:27:00 GMT
"A palace source stresses to PEOPLE that at the 'heart of this is a family, and they should be given the opportunity to discuss the issues raised privately, as a family.'"
Please.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 10, 2021 2:11:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Mar 10, 2021 3:36:47 GMT
I wish things like this would quit being reported. Constantly pitting the couples against other with a "who's more liked" contest. It's like the old "Mom always liked me best" bit. It's no wonder there are hard feelings.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 10, 2021 5:03:21 GMT
I wish things like this would quit being reported. Constantly pitting the couples against other with a "who's more liked" contest. It's like the old "Mom always liked me best" bit. It's no wonder there are hard feelings. Nobody makes anyone read them. I don't think Meghan was easy to get along with, hopefully she will be now. Jmho.
|
|