Meghan and Harry 4: Working for Netflix

[anjulibai]

William cheated with Rose Hanbury, Marchioness of Cholmondley (or however it's spelled, I just know it's pronounced Chumley).

There have been lots written about it. Apparently, Kate tried to frieze Rose out of their social circle, who are called the Turnip Toffs, bit the toffs liked Rose, so they weren't having it.

There's so much gossip about William and Kate, I have been meaning to start a thread.

Edited March 9, 2021 by anjulibai

[LittleOwl]

2 minutes ago, SoSoNosy said:

In searching Google, I found several articles like this.  I remember reading about it when it supposedly happened.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/04/229514/prince-william-cheated-on-kate-middleton-allegations

I also Googled, but didn't stumble across anything that wasn't tabloid tatt.  The refinery article doesn't work for me here?  Is it a US only link?

 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Just now, LittleOwl said:

I also Googled, but didn't stumble across anything that wasn't tabloid tatt.  The refinery article doesn't work for me here?  Is it a US only link?

 

It’s probably all going to be tabloid tatt. There’s not enough evidence for real publications to run it. Town & Country ran an article about the “turnip toffs” (posh people in Norfolk) that made no sense to me until I found out about the rumored affair.

[Lollipopgirl]

25 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

William cheated with Rose Hanbury, Marchioness of Cholmondley (or however it's spelled, I just know it's pronounced Chumley).

There have been lots written about it. Apparently, Kate tried to frieze Rose out of their social circle, who are called the Turnip Toffs, bit the toffs liked Rose, so they weren't having it.

There's so much gossip about William and Kate, I have been meaning to start a thread.

Obviously being in the UK I’ve heard these rumors. However, Rose and Kate were spotted together at a memorial service in January 2020 looking really chummy. We know the British press are inclined to run with even the flimsiest story, and have been known to make up lies on occasion. I’m just not sure this is true.
 

 

 

[Anna Bolinas]

54 minutes ago, LittleOwl said:

Have you got any articles showing this? I think I missed this.... 

This article is a lot more circumspect about the accusations. This one is more gossipy, and this one has a little timeline of how the rumors started. I guess I could've been more careful with my wording to say that William allegedly cheated on Kate while she was pregnant, but. Certainly it would behoove the royal family to squash any of that talk quickly, whether or not it was true.

[tabitha2]

Cheating is certainly common among that set and was taken as a matter of course for  both sexes not very long ago though I don’t know if that has changed  or not.  

Edited March 9, 2021 by tabitha2

[byzant]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:22 PM, tabitha2 said:

Then they would have to do it for the rest. A line has to be drawn somewhere and unfortunately someone is always going to aggrieved when the line is not what they want.

Yes  and the queens line is corrupt rapist, on the needs publicly funded protection, and  mixed race child on the-who cares about the death threats, totally  makes sense. 

Also your bollocks about Anne's children misses the face that anne had security . So her children were protected as minors. Archies father's security was also withdrawn_ so theres no equivelent. For god sake until 2011 we where still paying for the york sisters security and they have never been working royals. !!! 

 

Re the affair William threatened legal action so the british reporting was very quiet. More covered in the society gossip its hardly the first time hes cheated. He wasnt faithful back at uni and no  evidence anythings changed 

Edited March 9, 2021 by byzant
Add

[WiseGirl]

Whoa what an ass did until now. I thought he just tossed a little fit because he got his feelings hurt or something. Did he resign before he was fired? Do I care? Does this mean he will finally be off the air?

https://people.com/tv/piers-morgan-leaving-good-morning-britain-after-controversial-meghan-markle-comments/

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by WiseGirl
Add tweet

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I watched the Piers Morgan clips and, damn. Aside from his unprofessionally hostile attitude towards Meghan and the wildly inappropriate shouting match with a mixed-race cohost, he talked over his colleagues and their guests, and he got at least one fact wrong (he claimed inaccurately that Oprah didn’t ask Meghan about the Markles, and also that Oprah had been Meghan’s “only family” at the wedding, but her mother was there). Personally, I would have fired him on the spot just for how he treated his female co-host. 

[viii]

8 hours ago, anjulibai said:

There's so much gossip about William and Kate, I have been meaning to start a thread.

PLEASE DO!!

[just_ordinary]

13 hours ago, anjulibai said:

She said she wanted in patient treatment, which they wouldn't be able to hide.

I can totally see them telling her no to that. 

The thing is- she was pregnant, they could have easily fabricated a pregnancy related treatment. Her gynaecologist could have decided to hospitalise her as well.

12 hours ago, sndral said:

Oh, I think any American with an interest in the British monarchy is fully aware of how the monarchy ‘works’ & indeed is aware of historical examples of just how ruthless the House of Windsor can be when it perceives a threat to it’s continued existence. Indeed we have verified examples of each of the tactics which M&H say have been used on them:

Removal of security/abandonment of protection. George V rescinded the UK’s offer of asylum resulting in the massacre of his cousin Czar Nicholas II, his wife, and their 5 children because George V had concerns that bad publicity would endanger the monarchy. Diana’s rejection of Royal security because of her fear that Royal security would be used to hamper/spy on her.

Denial/Removal of status/title. The refusal to grant HRH to the last divorced American to dare marry a British prince (and denying HRH to any children she might have by that prince) because George VI was afraid that his more charismatic brother would threaten his position. The removal of HRH from Diana, partly because she was more charismatic than her ex husband.

Removal of financial support. The threat to deprive Princess Margaret of financial support if she dared marry Peter Townsend - a divorced man.

 

 

I hope you take what I am about to say not as mean hand slap, but honestly your whole post proves the point. Your examples are pretty simplified and stated as facts. I would argue that most avid watchers of the scene are extremely aware that we mostly only deal with half truths. As a historian I know that you cannot just believe things. Even a diary entry gives you not the whole picture why certain decisions are made. Royal watching is a big puddle of mud where assumptions get discussed. This doesn’t mean something can’t be the truth but we only “know” as far as it’s the most probable thing. Some stuff is common knowledge but it is the light hearted superficial things (curtsying to the Queen in private). Even even those have so much details that don’t get mentioned every time that they often aren’t reported 100% correct (all those stuff about protocol or titles). I will make a generalist on here: most Americans that I have met in the royal watcher scene only joined after Meghan appeared. Which is fine- I love that the scene is alive. BUT they do refer to half truths or facts that stem from reading fictional historical books or fictional series and biopics, documentaries (almost all are just made to cash in and don’t present balanced or any deep research) a lot. It makes it daunting sometimes. And it seems to a trend to built up long relating casualties or explanations full of examples that are not really correct (for the reasons stated above). Not all, obviously but that something I experience a lot. Sadly, the whole scene has become a battle ground with extreme polarisation. Before it was more lighthearted discussion. Most weren’t that personal invested and they were all fair game to criticise and praise. And it has always been more criticism than praise.

10 hours ago, viii said:

Archie should have been given the same titles and security that Charlotte and Louis are given. He's on the same level as them, as eventually they are all going to be grandchildren of a reigning monarch. While Charlotte and Louis have an edge that someday their father is going to be king, eventually all three of them are going to fade to the background as George steps into his own. I don't think Harry and Meghan's request for security (which was always more important to them than a title since Archie was not even born yet and was receiving death threats) was unreasonable. 

The thing is, he and his sister are just not? In the eyes of the rules Harry’s children are not on the same level as Wills at this moment. They actually even won’t be, when Charles becomes king. Wiliam is the direct heir, Harry is not. That’s a fact. The whole discussion about streamlining the monarchy didn’t come from nowhere. Their MO is outdated, the public doesn’t want to pay for more than a handful people. As often there is some truth when such rumours appear, and it seems it is indeed they plan to cut the spares children from titles as well. Which is the right thing to do in my eyes. Those rumours have been around before Meghan appeared- it has nothing to do with her, her heritage or whatever. Sadly, individuals don’t play a part in such things.
I do think things might been differently if Archie would have been a girl. It’s a sickening fact that baby girls sell like Hot Cross Buns. Just look at all the comments that wanted Archie to be a girl and after his birth called for a female sibling ASAP. A little princess might have made the cut for those reasons- also completely unrelated to the individual. I could be wrong but this kind of sexism has found it’s way in many mindsets on a sublevel and I wouldn’t put it past them to discuss this scenario. PR can be a dirty job.

I get their disappointment about the protection. I feel that this really hit home with Harry. He, very much has taken to his mother’s tragedy. It would have been a nice statement to say, we will pay because Archie is mixed race and it has sadly shown that he is more vulnerable. Thing is, they all get death threats, even the children. So I wonder if he got more? Because if it’s “just” death threats in their normal range it makes no difference in their thinking. The individual looses against the bold mechanics and technicalities. I get why Harry and Meghan are disappointed and zu think an exception could have been made but in the end they also could have shrugged their shoulders, say we understand the reasoning even though we think it’s unfair and just pay with our own millions. I mean as long as Archie lives with them he had protection all right. The bodyguard will not leave the child behind to save only H&M. The money they got from the Queen was theirs to spend as they see fit. Protection for Archie was not and is not a real problem. What we see is a fight about technicalities, him being obviously treated different then his cousins (which would hurt every parent) and some entitlement on Harry’s side.

9 hours ago, LittleOwl said:

Have you got any articles showing this? I think I missed this.... 

Disclsimer: I wouldn’t put it past Wiliam to cheat. There have been some incidents (the ski trip) that don’t look favourably. But this particular story is extremely vague. The close relationship with Rose and her husband was side eyed and then there was a dinner with just Wiliam and Rose. Re: the dinner: I never understood this. Having dinner alone with a opposite sex friend is so normal to me that zu never understood the outcry. A journalist „confirmed“ it via Twitter only to backtrack and tweet he made it all up. But the story was not just gossip anymore and no one cared that the confirmation seems to be false. Tabloids wrote about the rift between the women- I would say we just saw them together just as much as we saw than before their friendship got public interest but who knows. There were rumours the BRF made uk tabloids stay silent about it- but no other country seems to have really picked it up again. There never was any evidence to be found (while the ski trip or the whole Jecca story was easily to be found and with enough evidence). That’s why I dismiss this particular story. The BRF is actually pretty bad in their cover ups if they even try so if there was some real cheating/affair the tabloids would have found something and the BRF would have not had the power to burry it.

I can totally see Wiliam developing a crush on Rose, maybe mutual. Some lighthearted flirting that went a bit to far into the grey area maybe. It’s enough to freeze a contact and to inflict pain on the partner, but it’s not the save as cheating (IMO). It’s also enough to spark some gossip but never create any evidence to be found. 

It could also all be true, that’s just my conclusion looking at the whole situation.

Edited March 10, 2021 by just_ordinary

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Personally, I would have fired him on the spot just for how he treated his female co-host. 

Seems like at least some of the vitriol he's directed non-stop at Meghan during the last 5-6 years is personal:

Oh, and Piers Morgan was always there for the racism:

 

[Coconut Flan]

20 hours ago, Smee said:

I doubt they’d use Rachel, it was Meghan’s character in Suits for nearly ten years.

Yet, Rachel is Meghan's first name.  

[truthseeker]

14 hours ago, anjulibai said:

You know, I am white with several cousins are are mixed race. As we've had children, we've noted characteristics and coloring, who looks like who, which traits come from which side, what surprise traits our gets have gotten. 

How dark a child might end up being was never discussed. 

One example: My cousin who is half Japanese had a baby girl one month before my youngest son was born. By chance, they both happened to be blond haired, and blue eyed, with fair skin. When they were about a year, we got the little ones together and talked about both of our surprise at having blond, blue eyed kids, because both of us have dark hair, and darker eyes, as do our husbands. We talked about how there were several family members that were blond as children, including her dad, and how my husband had been blond as a baby, so the genes were there. We talked about how I thought my son's hair would dark, as my husband's had, and maybe her daughter's would too. 

We talked about this again when my cousin had her second child, a boy, and he had dark hair and dark eyes, but he looked a lot like his sister. We talked about how my younger son's hair was darkening and his eyes turned green, and how her daughter's hair was still very blond, but her eyes were a little darker now, like my son's.

You can have these conversations about coloring and have them be light-hearted and respectful and just enjoying seeing how children develop. 

 

This is what I meant in my one and only post in this thread.  You definitely put it better than me though.

My family is similar, in that we have some Chinese genes in one branch, and obviously some input we don't know about that meant my grandmother had very dark skin.  The rest of us are half very olive-skinned, and half (like me) that unhealthy half-dead pale that means five minutes in sunlight breeds a new thousand freckles.  As a result, the differences are often discussed at family get-togethers, but definitely in a light-hearted respectful manner.  I'm not aware anyone is ever offended, although this discussion does make me wonder if that should be checked on, and I will.

14 hours ago, anjulibai said:

But if the parents (and yes, Harry said he was upset by the conversations) is upset, than it's not lighthearted and it's not respectful. That means, there's something wrong. 

Harry was upset, Meghan was upset, that really should be enough to say, the conversations were bad. 

And that, of course, is the main issue.  I'm off to check in with some cousins ...

[truthseeker]

14 hours ago, viii said:

Archie should have been given the same titles and security that Charlotte and Louis are given. He's on the same level as them, as eventually they are all going to be grandchildren of a reigning monarch. While Charlotte and Louis have an edge that someday their father is going to be king, eventually all three of them are going to fade to the background as George steps into his own. I don't think Harry and Meghan's request for security (which was always more important to them than a title since Archie was not even born yet and was receiving death threats) was unreasonable. 

I didn't agree with you this morning, but I've come around during the day.  It seems ridiculous to have a gap of x years, then give him a title and security.  Poor kid.  How's that going to feel when he's old enough to understand. 

I wonder if George will ever step into his own.  He doesn't seem to enjoy the spotlight as much as Charlotte.  She seems born for it - personality-wise as well as literally.

 

[Babsi]

12 hours ago, byzant said:

Also your bollocks about Anne's children misses the face that anne had security . So her children were protected as minors. Archies father's security was also withdrawn_ so theres no equivelent. For god sake until 2011 we where still paying for the york sisters security and they have never been working royals. !!! 

And he had it until he up and left as a working royal. Anne still is a working royal (the hardest working one in fact). If Harry had not left, he and his family would have continued to recieve protection. Presumably until Archie and his sibling are adults.

You cannot leave a job and still expect to keep all the pros of that job. And it is a job. And besides, they are worth millions. If H and M want to have security in the US (or before in Canada) they can. They just have to pay for it themselves. The monarchy is seen critically as is. Taxpayers in Great Britain or the Commonwealth are not obligated to pay for security for someones mansion or red carpet outings if they are no longer working "for them" (for lack of a better term).

I feel the emotions are running high everywhere and distract from the facts. It has nothing to do with their reasons for leaving, how right or wrong their statements are etc...

And honestly their whining about money is a bit offputting to me. They live in a 14 mio dollar mansion, her wardrobe alone is worth millions, her baby shower for Archie made headlines due to how extravagant it was even back when they were still funded by Charles. If they go broke with THAT, how is the rest of us even surviving?! (and to preempt the whataboutism...I do know Kate also has a f-ing expensive wardrobe....you could argue she wears british designers to promote them AND is a working royal, I still think it is excessive)

Adding to it (again): I agree with the fact Archie is not comparable to the Cambridge kids, based on lineage. Until William had kids, Harry was next in line to him. Now he comes after Louis and Archie even after him. Archie is seventh in line to the throne and as mentioned by another poster above, not even through the direct line. He is the same age and a grandchild to Charles, but while that matters to the family, it does not matter to the monarchy. And the monarchy is what the brits are paying for. Charles is right to want to slim it down, it is done in other monarchies as well (e.g. Sweden) and has nothing to do with personal animosity or race. Race is rightfully a very sensitive topic and a very emotional one, but it is not at the root of every single issue and I personally feel it is used as a knockout argument a little too often in this discussion.

After the rewatch of the interview I am personally not even entirely sure if Meghan and Harry did not misconstrue the comment made on Archies potential skincolour and took it as more racist as it was. I doubt we will ever find out for certain. If it was said the way they communicated it it is disgusting and inexcusable. If it was more along the lines of speculating on nose, eye colour, hair colour and then the complexion, it might be tone deaf maybe, but probably more curiosity about features.

Whilst others have said they never speculated about skin colour of babies of their relatives and friends, in my circle of friends it has happened. The parents both wondered (only go to know them by kid #3) if said kid would be as light skinned as kid #1 or as dark olive skinned as #2 and of course about hair texture (curly or wavy)....not colour, cause everyone presumed the blonde of mum would lose out.....kid#3 came out with the most gorgeus blonde tight curls and a complexion directly in the middle of both siblings . As long as it is just curiosity over a feature and no derision involved, I cannot see racism in it, personally

Edited March 10, 2021 by Babsi

[tabitha2]

There is racism in the British Tabloids absolutely but the Sussex couple were treated as any other second son of the heir apparent and his wife would be according to Royal procedure and tradition.  It appears they assumed they would be entitled to permissions and privilege not their right, to be treated equally with William and family and when demands weren’t catered to they got angry and flounced Yet still expected dad and/or the Canadian government to pay for them as non working Royals to pay for them indefinitely. 
 

They gave an interview that was confusing, vague, contradictory( they could not even get their own stories straight) and full of easily disproved claims. 
 

As for Security. Baby Archie would have been protected under his parents detail had they stayed working Royals and gotten an officer when out with his nannie. Nothing extra is needed  Or they could have just paid for any extra it like they do now. 

 

[byzant]

Andrew????? She fought for him to keep his protection 

 

On a totally unrelated note isn't the ignore user function amazing!

Edited March 10, 2021 by byzant

[tabitha2]

Why don’t you go make a topic about Andrew if talking about him is so pressing to you? He has absolutely nothing to do with Harry and Meghans situation.  
 

But the realistic Answer is her son, she is his mother  and has had protection his entire life as a rulers  He was never investigated let alone charged with anything Her POV is likely why take it away now?  It is what it is. Harry would have had the same had he stayed. 
 

Andrew also railed  a long time for his girls to keep protection detail but she drew the line on that. 

[Pleiades_06]

2 hours ago, Babsi said:

After the rewatch of the interview I am personally not even entirely sure if Meghan and Harry did not misconstrue the comment made on Archies potential skincolour and took it as more racist as it was.

I suggest you do some research on impact vs. intent. They felt it was racist and therefore I’m believing them.

[tabitha2]

It was not Phillip or the Queen and Charles had never given indication that he would be inclined to racism of any kind. That only leaves William if this true and as Meghan only heard this secondhand I question the intent behind the statement 
 

However Something no one here has cared to mentioned... Harry was known to call South Asians  “Paki’s” and “Rag heads” in the past  and that’s on record.  It’s odd that his own racism is conveniently forgotten  

I wonder if Meghan knows this and if so was it important to her I wonder ? 

[Babsi]

10 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I suggest you do some research on impact vs. intent. They felt it was racist and therefore I’m believing them.

See, this is why I referred to it as a knockout argument...someone mentions race and there is no counter-argument possible anymore that will be seriously considered.

I personally feel, if it impacted you a certain way but was not intended in that way it only means there has been a miscommunication that needs to be adressed and feelings that have been hurt and it does not automatically mean you are factually right (in a case such as this). And I feel impact vs intent does not necessarily apply in this particular instance. Especially as vaguely as they kept the issue in the interview. It could go either way. And if H and M were already feeling ostracized and wrong-footed by family it could have been the final straw, no matter in what way it was said. Again, they did not mention the person also said: "...and this is problematic". I did not get the feeling they followed up with the person or tried to clarify. But who knows....again...if it WAS said in a derogatory way, it is ugly and racist....if it was merely part of neutral curiosity about the babys looks, I'd say it wasn't racist.

What it shows is that healthy communication would do this whole family a lot of good. How can you not prepare someone for their role in this day and age? Why are the expectations not clearly outlined? Why do you not try to clarify how something was meant instead of running with the most vile meaning? And so on...

I do think the royal family is chock-full of issues, no question. But Meghan has some as well. The Wimbledon-desaster for once, trying to trademark Sussex Royal whilst quitting to be a working royal, private jets left and right whilst lecturing everyone else on climate change (same goes for Will and Kate here though), the extravagant baby shower and so on.

In my personal opinion both sides have messed up in this.

 

 

 

 

[kachuu]

43 minutes ago, Babsi said:

See, this is why I referred to it as a knockout argument...someone mentions race and there is no counter-argument possible anymore that will be seriously considered.

I personally feel, if it impacted you a certain way but was not intended in that way it only means there has been a miscommunication that needs to be adressed and feelings that have been hurt and it does not automatically mean you are factually right (in a case such as this). And I feel impact vs intent does not necessarily apply in this particular instance. Especially as vaguely as they kept the issue in the interview. It could go either way. And if H and M were already feeling ostracized and wrong-footed by family it could have been the final straw, no matter in what way it was said. Again, they did not mention the person also said: "...and this is problematic". I did not get the feeling they followed up with the person or tried to clarify. But who knows....again...if it WAS said in a derogatory way, it is ugly and racist....if it was merely part of neutral curiosity about the babys looks, I'd say it wasn't racist.

This is a really great devil's advocate POV. THere's so many details that are simply unknown. However, if she was already such a target of extreme racism from the tabloids & there seems to be this huge game of telephone in "the institution" itself, I don't think it's a hard jump to feel further attacked when it's brought up amongst family members.

 

I was leaning towards Charles saying it, but I'm starting to lean towards Will. How they spoke about people and carefully articulated about others is also really telling.

[viii]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

got angry and flounced

That's what you did yesterday and yet here you are again ?

4 hours ago, Babsi said:

Charles is right to want to slim it down, it is done in other monarchies as well

Does anyone actually have any receipts about Charles wanting to slim down the monarchy? This is said often but I've read that there's no actual proof he has said that. 

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

However Something no one here has cared to mentioned... Harry was known to call South Asians  “Paki’s” and “Rag heads” in the past  and that’s on record.  It’s odd that his own racism is conveniently forgotten  

Harry's horrible behavior has been discussed in this thread and in general. He grew up in an extremely racist family (Queen Mother, Prince Philip, etc) and lived a life of privilege and ignorance. Judging from how he speaks today, it is clear that he has learned to do better and is now putting that into practice. 

59 minutes ago, kachuu said:

I was leaning towards Charles saying it, but I'm starting to lean towards Will. How they spoke about people and carefully articulated about others is also really telling.

Their rift would make a lot more sense if it was William. The excuse given for their broken relationship doesn't seem like it should be big enough to cause such a divide. However, if William cautioned him to slow down while dating her and wondered how dark their kids' skin would be, I could see why Harry pulled away so quickly and so abruptly. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by viii

[tabitha2]

Oh. Ok. When you like some one tou are a fan of their racism is waved off. It’s not his fault! His family made him do! When you don’t it’s inexcusable and they are irrevocably horrible.  How do you feel about  Phillip whom Henry had made no secret of respecting and looking up to?  

But I got your number now at least. 
 

People like you You are the real problem here not me. Yes, ignore is great!