Meghan and Harry 2: Now with Archie

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, viii said:

I would hate for new people to judge me based off of people who knew me years ago. There's got be room for growth here. Meghan is not the same person today that she was 2-10 years ago - no one is. 

Sure, there's room for growth. But people need to actually show growth, right? Otherwise, we shouldn't be making fun of Steve Maxwell or the Duggars for things they've done a decade ago. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say two years is such a long time for a 38 year old that one's actions and speech then don't count. 

With the obvious caveat that I don't know this woman personally, there does seem to be a bit of a pattern in her treatment of people. 

1 hour ago, Giraffe said:

Personally I take anything her ex says with a grain of salt. I can only imagine what a couple of my exes would say about me!

By ex, I meant the guy she was living with when she agreed to go on a date with Harry. 

[meep]

3 hours ago, SweetJuly said:

This is not at all limited to sexism or racism, though. The British Royal family generally deals with any criticism (or abuse) the same way - by publicly ignoring it, along the "never complain, never explain" motto.

After all, you'll never be able to silence your critics or your haters. There will always be someone who disagrees with you or trolls who will rip you apart no matter what you do. And anyone in the public eye will have to deal with this at some point: royalty, celebrity or politician.

The healthiest way to deal with it is indeed to simply ignore it. Don't read it, don't listen to it, don't burden yourself with it. If it's unjustified, it will go away over time, save the occasional unteachable idiot. If it's justified, someone close to you who actually matters (family, friends, colleagues) will probably have a quiet word with you about it at some point.

If you try to "defend" yourself publicly, you just open up a whole can of worms. You show yourself as vulnerable. You acknowledge trolls, trolls that will never fully disappear as mentioned above, and just provide them with a bigger platform. At best this will ensure that the abuse thrown at you will continue because people know it gets to you; at worst you'll get additional abuse for the way you deal with the abuse.... you get my point.

Look at Angela Merkel to give a republican example. She received absolutely vile abuse for her physical appearance at first. She never acknowledged it publicly, just made some very subtle adjustments in her hair and wardrobe, and otherwise carried on with her political work. Now only the dumbest idiots mock her for her looks, and receive, if at all, a very tired reaction.

I understand what you are saying but I do think there are circumstances where staying silent can bite you in the butt. As for Meghan & Harry specifically, I don't think there would be any circumstance where Harry could just "never complain" and move on with life as if everything is happy. Even in a circumstance where he married a completely different woman. He is obviously still traumatized with the paparazzi. Even in interviews from years ago before he ever met Meghan, he talks about it. I think this would have happened no matter what. 

Irregardless of anything, the responsibility is on society to say, "Hey, they said/did this in the media, that's not cool," instead of reading up very obvious gossip from "sources" and saying, "AH! Yes, of course, I knew this person was evil all along...." 

[Giraffe]

40 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

By ex, I meant the guy she was living with when she agreed to go on a date with Harry. 

Ah, thanks! I automatically assume ex-husband when I hear “ex.”

Edited January 14, 2020 by Giraffe
Grammaring betterrreerrrr

[Pleiades_06]

9 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

So what? My grandparents were born and/or grew up in Nazi Germany and didn’t turn out to be racists, antisemites or xenophobes. 

I’m glad. I think a lot of Germans who survived that time were very much influenced by the Nazis and their parents. 
But she  really does come from a family where her father was a Nazi and there was no public atonement/recognition of until it was exposed by the press. It was a scandal in the 80’s.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/apr/16/princess-michael-father-nazi-ss-officer

And for the record, her racism has been pretty well documented.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Pleiades_06

[nokidsmom]

On 1/9/2020 at 9:41 PM, JenniferJuniper said:

I'm not British and don't follow modern day royals as a general rule, but I do wonder if Harry has always wanted to be a real boy and not have to deal with being a part of the royal family.  Perhaps he, subconsciously or otherwise, went out of his way marry a woman who wouldn't "get" the royalty stuff and make the break that much easier for him. 

Catching up on this thread and IIRC Harry mentioned living moving to another part of the world (Africa?) some time ago.  He's always struck me as being pretty ambivalent about being a Royal and has made no secret of what he thinks about the media, given their role in the death of his mother, so it has be particularly galling to see what his wife is being subjected to by the likes of the Daily Fail, etc. 

It occurred to me that if extricating himself from the royal life was a goal for himself, then it would make total sense to marry someone who would be on board with that, who would want to do other things in life besides doing what royals do.  Meghan seems to be such a person and may have known from the get-go that Harry wanted out.  Maybe not immediately but eventually.  

[nokidsmom]

21 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I don't know Meghan, I don't know how she feels about her dad, but you can love your parents while also not wanting them to be in your lives. Love isn't having to keep a toxic parent who has used you for money and fame in your life. And that is what he did. 

I don't know Meghan but her father's behavior in the runup to the wedding, the week of, and the months afterward when he cashed in with interviews on the Daily Fail, well, let's just say I have no problem with her cutting her father off.   At first, I felt he just made a couple of mistakes but he continued to talk and take money for it.   He has been more quiet lately but still makes himself, in the words of one newspaper, "eternally available" for a comment. 

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, Giraffe said:

Ah, thanks! I automatically assume ex-husband when I hear “ex.”

I checked and I did write "ex-husband" not "ex" as I should have, so that one's on me. 

[viii]

28 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

It occurred to me that if extricating himself from the royal life was a goal for himself, then it would make total sense to marry someone who would be on board with that, who would want to do other things in life besides doing what royals do.  Meghan seems to be such a person and may have known from the get-go that Harry wanted out.  Maybe not immediately but eventually.  

I feel like this has been in the works for a long time, back to even when Archie was born and they refused titles for him. 

[Blahblah]

Agreed Harry has been wanting out for years and Meghan is completely on board with this. If they want to become philanthropic charity supporting celebs then good luck and don't let the palace door hit you on the way out.

But again, don't just cut ties to funding from the sovereign grant. Go be independent completely. You both have huge financial resources already with massive earning potential.

No more money from daddy. No more crown estate residence to live in. Fund your own bodyguards and nannies like other celebs.

As for keeping Megs in designer clothes, I read somewhere that when she was first with Harry she had her assistant call a designer to provide her with a custom made dress in return for publicity as per usual celeb transactions. She was swiftly told that royals pay for things and has happily done so ever since. But once she isn't a senior royal any more this rule may not apply. That would solve a few money issues.

[nokidsmom]

25 minutes ago, viii said:

I feel like this has been in the works for a long time, back to even when Archie was born and they refused titles for him. 

It was noted that they refused titles for Archie however, it didn't really give away any plans that might be in the works as Prince Edward and his wife also refused titles for their kids.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

Prince Edward and his wife also refused titles for their kids.  

I don't know anything about them...is their reasoning behind this known?  Did Harry say why he was refusing a title for Archie when he did?

 

[Blahblah]

18 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't know anything about them...is their reasoning behind this known?  Did Harry say why he was refusing a title for Archie when he did?

 

Re Edward’s kids:

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/why-prince-edwards-children-are-not-titled-prince-and-princess-103666/

As for Archie there was no official statement but the consensus was that they wanted to let him be a private citizen as much as possible.

https://www.newsweek.com/baby-sussex-archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor-prince-harry-meghan-markle-1423459

[nokidsmom]

28 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't know anything about them...is their reasoning behind this known?  Did Harry say why he was refusing a title for Archie when he did?

 

I need to clarify a bit.   Prince Edward and his wife refused HRH (Prince/Princess) royal titles for their children, standard for grandchildren of the monarch, and requested their (honorary) titles be styled as children of an earl which was the title conferred on Edward on his wedding day.  The children then use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor instead of Prince/Princess so-and-so. Similar with Archie, Archie is known as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, and not as an earl a title he was eligible for due being a son of Prince Harry, carrying on one of Harry's titles.

The idea in both cases (as I understand it) was to distance them from the rigors of well, being royal and live a more normal life. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by nokidsmom

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

The idea in both cases (as I understand it) was to distance them from the rigors of well, being royal and live a more normal life. 

I guess my own ignorance is showing here, but with Archie he will always be Harry's son.  As long as there is intense interest in his dad (and due to Diana's popularity I think there always will be) title or not, a normal life isn't in the cards for that baby.

I completely respect the intent to try to give him one, certainly to protect Archie and Meghan from downside of that very specific kind of fame, but I don't think any title would get him near as much public interest as being Harry's son and Diana's grandson.

[nokidsmom]

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

As long as there is intense interest in his dad (and due to Diana's popularity I think there always will be) title or not, a normal life isn't in the cards for that baby.

Right, and when Charles becomes king, he is still the king's grandson along with grandson of Diana.   There's no getting around that particular accident of birth.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

1 hour ago, viii said:

I feel like this has been in the works for a long time, back to even when Archie was born and they refused titles for him. 

Princess Margaret. Princess Anne, and Prince Edward all did not have royal rank (HRH) for their children. Anne’s children don’t even have courtesy titles (viscount or lady, given to children of earls). Prince Andrew’s daughters are styled HRH, but rumor has it Charles wants them to give it up. Anyway, Margaret, Anne, and Edward all stayed full-time royals. I don’t think Archie’s lack of a title pointed to Megxit. He could use the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton as an adult if he likes.

[adidas]

They had Sussex Royal in the works officially in March 2019, right? Imo that means they were already making plans to leave the Royal Family at that stage. When Archie was born a couple of months later it would make sense that they didn’t want a title for him if they were planning on leaving.

edited to add: yes, the registration happened in March 2019. I knew I’d read it somewhere.

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/sussexroyal-com-domain-for-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-was-registered-in-march-2019/

Edited January 14, 2020 by adidas

[Ozlsn]

3 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I’m glad. I think a lot of Germans who survived that time were very much influenced by the Nazis and their parents. 
But she  really does come from a family where her father was a Nazi and there was no public atonement/recognition of until it was exposed by the press. It was a scandal in the 80’s.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/apr/16/princess-michael-father-nazi-ss-officer

And for the record, her racism has been pretty well documented.

Given she was born in 1945 I think it's safe to say her family's influence has been a major factor. Also I looked up the broach thing (I hadn't heard about it previously) and frankly all I can say is what a nasty, racist piece of baggage that woman is. I can honestly say that if that were my partner being targeted like that I would have made it clear that if she were at family functions then we weren't.  The sooner some of these people drop off the twig (and the publically funded list) the better.

[viii]

I don’t think it pointed to it, but it’s simply another piece of the puzzle that makes sense me. 

[SoSoNosy]

I didn't know anything about Meghan when they announced their engagement.  The thing I saw, and I know I'm not the only one because I have discussed it with a few people, is that she was not looking at him with the adoration that he was looking at her with.   She is a fairly good actress, but not good enough to fake that.

Princess Michael of Kent has several unflattering nicknames.  I didn't know anything about her family background until this thread, though.

[viii]

@SoSoNosy if you’re hinting that she’s a gold digger, though, why would she be ~pushing~ for him to leave the royal world? That narrative doesn’t make sense. 

[SoSoNosy]

I wasn't hinting at anything; I don't hint, I come right out and say it (I'm way too old to hint).   I was simply stating my opinion.  Maybe she just wanted an adoring husband.

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, SoSoNosy said:

 The thing I saw, and I know I'm not the only one because I have discussed it with a few people, is that she was not looking at him with the adoration that he was looking at her with.   She is a fairly good actress, but not good enough to fake that.

Are we really going to criticize a woman for not gazing at her husband in adoration? 

[SoSoNosy]

I am, yes, because it's Harry.  He has always been like a little lost boy, to me, and I want his wife to idolize him.  Any other guy can hope for the best.

[louisa05]

We don't know that a title was offered for Archie. The great grandchildren of the monarch, other than the presumptive heir to the throne, do not automatically receive titles--translation: George was the only great grandchild automatically given a title. At the time of Charlotte's birth, the Queen made the decision that all of William's children would be styled as Prince/sses and given an HRH as they would automatically receive that when he becomes the Prince of Wales anyway. But Archie was never entitled to an HRH or the title Prince at birth. And it has never been confirmed that it was offered by the Queen. It was just reported that H & M gallantly and humbly refused it. That was never confirmed to be how it happened.