Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Karma

Meghan and Harry: Royal Baby

Recommended Posts

anjulibai

It'd be kind of cool if the baby is born on the Queen's birthday. Prince Louis almost was, but was late by 2 days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seahorse Wrangler
19 hours ago, singsingsing said:

Arrrgh, late April? My birthday is mid April. For crying out loud, I just want ONE royal baby born on my birthday. Is that really too much to ask?! :pb_lol:

I'd best not tell SF1 this. She's still annoyed that William and Kate got married on her birthday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture
14 hours ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

I'd best not tell SF1 this. She's still annoyed that William and Kate got married on her birthday.

Harry and Meghan got married on my 30th birthday, which was also the 482nd anniversary of Anne Boleyn’s death. I thought it was kind of fun to watch their wedding with my toddler that morning. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
viii

When they first announced the wedding date, my first thought was Anne Boleyn, ha. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angelic83
On 1/14/2019 at 11:15 PM, anjulibai said:

It'd be kind of cool if the baby is born on the Queen's birthday. Prince Louis almost was, but was late by 2 days. 

Or the baby can be born on the Dutch kings birtday :) (27th of april)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture

And in the latest, “What can we do to purposely cause harm to our pregnant daughter/sister who happened to marry a Prince,” news:

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c60e5bae4b0eec79b250218/amp

I don’t get how Thomas thought this was going to help his case. If that letter is genuine then it did nothing but backup the claims in Meghan’s support and it’s really messed up for him to release it. if it’s not genuine then it’s still messed up because he’s purposely trying to hurt and manipulate his pregnant daughter on a global scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wine time!
nokidsmom
1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

I don’t get how Thomas thought this was going to help his case. If that letter is genuine then it did nothing but backup the claims in Meghan’s support and it’s really messed up for him to release it. if it’s not genuine then it’s still messed up because he’s purposely trying to hurt and manipulate his pregnant daughter on a global scale. 

OMG, Thomas is at it again?   Whether the letter is real or not, he still taking to the press and the Daily Fail at that.   By his own admission, he was told from the get-go not to talk to the press, but he continues to do it,  again and again.    And furthermore, he insists on defending himself aka "setting the record straight" on myriad points such as "he really had an heart attack" etc. as if he thinks it's going to make himself look better while humiliating his daughter every single time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
acheronbeach

Ugh these two.  They're both messes (obviously IMO).  

One, why did Meghan approve of her anonymous "friends" doing that awful hagiographic article for People magazine?  And why bring up how your dad is at fault, and that specific letter, when her father hasn't sold it or mentioned it since she sent it in August?  He's been relatively quiet lately and it feels like pouring gasoline on embers.  

Two, Thomas... he's an angry, immature man, and clearly wants to make his daughter's relationship a moneymaking dumpster fire.  I think both of them come across poorly in their letters - self absorbed and dramatic.  But he's the parent, and his the letter comes across as a petulant tantrum designed to make her either hurt, offended, or react publicly - I'm not sure which.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture
1 hour ago, acheronbeach said:

Ugh these two.  They're both messes (obviously IMO).  

One, why did Meghan approve of her anonymous "friends" doing that awful hagiographic article for People magazine?  And why bring up how your dad is at fault, and that specific letter, when her father hasn't sold it or mentioned it since she sent it in August?  He's been relatively quiet lately and it feels like pouring gasoline on embers.  

Two, Thomas... he's an angry, immature man, and clearly wants to make his daughter's relationship a moneymaking dumpster fire.  I think both of them come across poorly in their letters - self absorbed and dramatic.  But he's the parent, and his the letter comes across as a petulant tantrum designed to make her either hurt, offended, or react publicly - I'm not sure which.  

Two alternate options:

1. Meghan may not have approved anything. It’s possible the friend(s) who spoke out did so without her approval. That could be why they were listed as unnamed sources - because they wanted to speak up without possibly getting into trouble. 

2. Meghan didn’t write the letter and this was just another staged opportunity by Thomas (and possibly Samantha.) I don’t think this is very likely because People at least seems to try to be viewed as credible, but I have such a low opinion of Meghan’s family that I can’t quite rule it out completely. 

I don’t necessarily think the letter attributed to Meghan was overly dramatic either. If Meghan did write it and it’s an accurate record of the facts, then I could very easily understand why she’d be so scared for her father leading up to the wedding and upset about the breach of trust and privacy afterwards - especially if this is all part of a pattern of behavior from her father and siblings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
acheronbeach
5 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Two alternate options:

1. Meghan may not have approved anything. It’s possible the friend(s) who spoke out did so without her approval. That could be why they were listed as unnamed sources - because they wanted to speak up without possibly getting into trouble. 

2. Meghan didn’t write the letter and this was just another staged opportunity by Thomas (and possibly Samantha.) I don’t think this is very likely because People at least seems to try to be viewed as credible, but I have such a low opinion of Meghan’s family that I can’t quite rule it out completely. 

I don’t necessarily think the letter attributed to Meghan was overly dramatic either. If Meghan did write it and it’s an accurate record of the facts, then I could very easily understand why she’d be so scared for her father leading up to the wedding and upset about the breach of trust and privacy afterwards - especially if this is all part of a pattern of behavior from her father and siblings. 

1. IMO, no way is People, a legitimate mouthpiece for the BRF in the USA, gonna burn their bridges by running a totally unauthorized, unconfirmed article about the Royals.  If there really were "five friends", it would be pretty easy to narrow them down based on their stories of watching Meghan wiping doggie paws and lighting a candle at the bed and cooking for herself every day.  The "quotes from her friends" are totally "on-brand" with Meghan's pre-royal image and her Kruger Cowne PR.  Most damning to me was that the press who legitimately cover Kensington Palace in Canada and Britain released stories about how KP was blindsided and suggested Meghan had had a hand in orchestrating it.  

I suspect she wrote it herself.  It's just too on-point, too close to her old social media life, too much of a rebuttal against the most pointed criticisms she's faced - without the specificity and substance that a friend could really articulate. 

Logically, it makes sense to me, too.  She's a PR-savvy celebrity.  It must be frustrating for a person who for years built her persona around social media to now have that cut off - to be able to say nothing when people say things about her that seem totally unfair or unfounded.  I'd be looking for a way to slap back and dodge the constraints of the BRF.  

2. I can't imagine that letter's fake.  It's the same handwriting that Meghan used when she was writing fancy things to take pictures of on The Tig.  It's not her normal handwriting and it's really distinctive because she goes back to some of the letters and adds a left-leaning flourish.  I think it'd be hard to fake - especially five pages of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wine time!
nokidsmom
7 hours ago, acheronbeach said:

Logically, it makes sense to me, too.  She's a PR-savvy celebrity.  It must be frustrating for a person who for years built her persona around social media to now have that cut off - to be able to say nothing when people say things about her that seem totally unfair or unfounded.  I'd be looking for a way to slap back and dodge the constraints of the BRF.  

I really don't know if she is behind her friends speaking to People or not, though I see it as possible, certainly not advisable (therefore KP was kept in the dark), but possible.   @acheronbeach you make a point about her being PR savvy, this has to be very tough for someone who nurtured her public persona, only to give up all control and see all kinds of negative press published about her without the ability to rebut / refute it.  After months of remaining silent, this could have been her workaround, though it doesn't strike me as a good idea considering it would rile her dad up, which it did.

Regarding the letter, my opinion also is that it is not fake.  Mainly because timing.  It seems perfectly plausible to me that Meghan would write that letter after Thomas not only failed to attend the wedding  and the brouhaha preceding all that, but this would follow his interviews with the tabloids last summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tabitha2

I feel the glitter of spectacle and glow of marriage maybe wearing thin just now. She can’t be a Royal wife and an American celebrity at once. 

  • Downvote 1
  • Confused 1
  • I Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
acheronbeach

Lainey Lui has said MM is behind the People article.  She says Meghan is more skilled than the BRF at the "long gossip game."  :( 

If you don't know her, Lainey (Elaine Lui) is the co-host of ETalk Canada alongside Ben Mulroney (Jessica's husband).  She has publicly socialized with both MM and Jessica.

She's been a mouthpiece of MM's for a while and runs a celeb gossip blog that's had a bunch of "exclusives" about MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singsingsing

She's being viciously attacked and slandered with no let up. Honestly, it's disgusting and horrifying. Maybe this is par for the course and I've just never noticed it because celebrity gossip isn't my thing, but it's absolutely appalling. I wouldn't blame her for asking some of her friends to come to her defence, if she did. I don't care if she's the biggest bitch in the universe, she doesn't deserve the shit being heaped on her by the tabloids and her father's family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anjulibai

It's not par for the course for the Royals, from what I have seen. While there are regular articles criticizing various Royals for this or that, the crap being thrown at Meghan is really unprecedented. 

The reasons for it all? I think it's a confluence of things. She's black, she's American, she's divorced, she's an actress, she's a feminist, she's outspoken, she's self-made, she's pulling focus from other royals, she's changed the dynamics of William and Harry's relationship, she's changed the dynamics of Harry and Charles' relationship, she's changed the dynamics of William and Charles' relationship, she's got a family straight out of Jerry Springer. 

All of that has combined into a perfect storm of tabloid and British deplorables angst. 

I hope as time goes on, and she does more and more on behalf of the monarchy, she'll get more respect. Plus, the birth of a new prince or princess or two will definitely bring her some good will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
viii
9 hours ago, anjulibai said:

. Plus, the birth of a new prince or princess or two will definitely bring her some good will. 

Which is sad. 

I appreciate how Harry spoke up in her defense when they were dating, but I think it's time for the Royal family to speak up again and show some outwardly support of Meghan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anjulibai
7 hours ago, viii said:

Which is sad. . 

It is sad. Her motherhood status should have no baring on whether she gets respect. But it is what is what is, and it something that will help her. 

Quote

I appreciate how Harry spoke up in her defense when they were dating, but I think it's time for the Royal family to speak up again and show some outwardly support of Meghan

Harry has been criticized, unfortunately, for saying something. :( I do get why the Royal Family is silent on things, at least officially. They are supposed to be "above" tabloid crap, though they really aren't. 

At the very least, unofficially, she's probably getting some support. The People article quoting her friends was most certainly Palace approved, meaning Queen approved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
acheronbeach
On 2/14/2019 at 1:51 PM, anjulibai said:

The People article quoting her friends was most certainly Palace approved, meaning Queen approved. 

Genuinely curious, why do you think that it was approved by Kensington Palace if staffers told longtime royal correspondents that it wasn't, and Lainey writing about the People story described her as "going rogue" and "she isn't playing by how the royal machinery normally operates"? 

Royals have always attracted virulent gossip.  The internet has just made it easier to find.  Anne Boleyn was a witch with six fingers who miscarried a monster.  Mary of Modena cheated on her husband in Bath and surreptitiously snuck a replacement baby into the palace.  The Queen Mother was in love with her brother in law and was secretly the family cook's daughter.   Camilla and Sofia of Sweden both have attracted sickening comments on articles and videos about them.  Generally they've both just stayed silent and worked hard in the face of it - and I think their reputations are pretty solid nowadays.  

Frankly, I think the PR strategy around MM has been terrible.  I don't know if it's because the BRF's very traditional structure has found it difficult to integrate Meghan's style leading to inconsistent/unflattering messaging, or if they're purposely not being helpful to her.  The messaging put out to the traditional UK press has been so poorly considered at times.  The events she's been sent to don't seem designed to build up goodwill or quell some of the more legitimate criticisms levelled at her.   

Add to that fact Meghan and Harry's people since the wedding have declined interviews with the traditional British royal correspondents, have threatened litigation over critical stories, and Meghan seems to turn to American media and social media for her PR, it's a perfect storm.  For someone like Meghan, who has always helmed her own PR ship and seemed to be pretty good at it, the negative media attention must feel awful.  But at the same time, she and Harry can't afford to make the local press their enemy - and it seems like that's happened.  

Meghan can't control her awful family or mean people online.  But I do hope KP does a better job handling her public relations going forward.  At least this is probably going to be the worst of it - as the years pass, the attention will inevitably focus more on George, Charlotte and Louis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyMumma

I don't know if this has been mentioned... but Prince William dated with Kate a lot longer... I believe it was 7 years?  To allow her time to adjust to the Royals.. From memory Prince Harry was a lot quicker down the aisle with MM.   I kind of think that Will's approach to it might have been a lot better then Harry's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WiseGirl
14 hours ago, CrazyMumma said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned... but Prince William dated with Kate a lot longer... I believe it was 7 years?  To allow her time to adjust to the Royals.. From memory Prince Harry was a lot quicker down the aisle with MM.   I kind of think that Will's approach to it might have been a lot better then Harry's.

Plus they started their married life outside of London. Maybe Harry and MM should have followed that example or the move to Windsor is an attempt to do so. I won't be surprised if they end up back at KP in the future. Catherine had a harder future to adjust to in my opinion.

Eventually as @acheronbeach pointed out the newness of  MM and Harry will fade and it will be Will, Catherine,  and their children front and center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singsingsing
16 hours ago, CrazyMumma said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned... but Prince William dated with Kate a lot longer... I believe it was 7 years?  To allow her time to adjust to the Royals.. From memory Prince Harry was a lot quicker down the aisle with MM.   I kind of think that Will's approach to it might have been a lot better then Harry's.

But William and Kate were teenagers when they met. It makes sense to date someone you met in university for seven years and get married in your late 20s. I can't really blame two people in their mid-late 30s who want children for not waiting seven years to get married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
acheronbeach
3 hours ago, singsingsing said:

But William and Kate were teenagers when they met. It makes sense to date someone you met in university for seven years and get married in your late 20s. I can't really blame two people in their mid-late 30s who want children for not waiting seven years to get married.

While I agree that seven years was unrealistic for Meghan and Harry, they had a long distance relationship, seeing each other every few months, for the first year and a half.  I think it would have been wiser for everyone if they lived together (or even in the same city) longer than six months before marriage.  

Mary moved to Denmark for two years before she and Frederik tied the knot.  Autumn Kelly and Peter Phillips also lived together in London for two or three years I think.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singsingsing
43 minutes ago, acheronbeach said:

While I agree that seven years was unrealistic for Meghan and Harry, they had a long distance relationship, seeing each other every few months, for the first year and a half.  I think it would have been wiser for everyone if they lived together (or even in the same city) longer than six months before marriage.  

Mary moved to Denmark for two years before she and Frederik tied the knot.  Autumn Kelly and Peter Phillips also lived together in London for two or three years I think.  

I have no idea how these people should have conducted their relationship. All I'm saying is that suggesting they should have copied William and Kate's doesn't make much sense.

Also, the fault for the way Meghan is currently being harassed lies with her father's family and the tabloids. Full stop. I don't like these implications that if this woman had changed her behaviour or somehow been 'better' she could have avoided these sexist, racist, and just downright vicious constant attacks. It smacks of blaming the victim, because regardless of what she's like as a person, she is the victim of these attacks, and it's disgusting to witness.

Edited by singsingsing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
acheronbeach
1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

I have no idea how these people should have conducted their relationship. All I'm saying is that suggesting they should have copied William and Kate's doesn't make much sense.

Also, the fault for the way Meghan is currently being harassed lies with her father's family and the tabloids. Full stop. I don't like these implications that if this woman had changed her behaviour or somehow been 'better' she could have avoided these sexist, racist, and just downright vicious constant attacks. It smacks of blaming the victim, because regardless of what she's like as a person, she is the victim of these attacks, and it's disgusting to witness.

Whether she conducted her relationship in a different way it would not have changed the way the British tabloids behave.  If they have a story, they exploit it.  The age of censoring embarrassing stories about the Royals is long gone.  It's not going to change because Meghan's relationship played out slower or faster.  The jerky family members would've still been there, and the UK media will treat her as they do every other famous person.  Unfortunately, her family gives them way more fodder than most celebrities.  

The other married-ins got years to perfect the obscure etiquette or dress or comportment traditions without constant, in your face media attention.  Meghan hasn't - she was just thrown into the fold, with what to me looks like really mediocre PR.  

That said, other than the stories about her family, her staff leaving, and her dress, I haven't read many articles that were overtly negative or inflammatory amongst the mainstream media.  The family and staff leaving are definitely a new thing, but the sexist stories about the clothes/makeup/hair are par for the course with the Royal women.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×