Meghan and Harry 5: Oprah, Racism, and Gossip! Oh My!

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

11 hours ago, Xanariel said:

If nothing else, if Britain is cruelly confiscating the passports of its royal brides then Meghan deserves a round of applause for the Mission Impossible heists she must have pulled off to leave the country on multiple occasions since her wedding, including the extravagant baby shower that I'd imagine Buckingham Palace's PR team would very much like to have prevented her attending! 

Thanks for the good earworm!

And also for the amusing daydream I'm having of those heists.

Edited April 6, 2021 by WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?
added bit

[Seahorse Wrangler]

18 hours ago, Xanariel said:

If nothing else, if Britain is cruelly confiscating the passports of its royal brides then Meghan deserves a round of applause for the Mission Impossible heists she must have pulled off to leave the country on multiple occasions since her wedding, including the extravagant baby shower that I'd imagine Buckingham Palace's PR team would very much like to have prevented her attending! 

When I was applying for landed immigrant status in Canada i had to send various documents including my passport , so I'm wondering if that applied to getting British citizenship and it wasn't explained clearly enough to said lady.

[just_ordinary]

On 4/6/2021 at 7:51 AM, Anna Bolinas said:

Though maybe that's where the confusion came in--if Beatrice and Eugenie were given security protection along with being accorded the style of Princess from birth, then possibly Harry and Meghan expected something similar for Archie? Also, Meghan did at least pay lip service to the idea of Archie having the choice of whether he wanted to keep any titles or security once he got older.

Makes sense--though they might've felt that, with all the negative press that Meghan got, then Archie should have gotten the protection anyway, not just because he was a prince or an earl or whatever but because he was her son and she was/is unpopular.

So, honest question--do you think the royal family and the British people would have been fine with Meghan continuing to act or monetizing her blog? I see in a Vanity Fair article that a couple of more tangential members of the royal family (Anne's son, Peter, and Diana's niece, Kitty) got criticized for doing ads for Chinese milk. In the same article, I see that working royals (which would've included Meghan and Harry pre-departure) are not supposed to sign commercial deals, even if it has nothing to do with politics. So like let's say Meghan did a commercial, a la Peter Phillips or any American celebrity, where she's promoting Activia or Toyota. Would that be acceptable?

And even with a normal job while still being a "senior royal"--I find it hard to imagine Harry working beside me at my retail job given the level of security he would require as an actual prince. Then I guess you have the devil's advocate argument that even a normal job would only come because they are a member of the royal family and not necessarily because they qualify or are the best person for the job, so no matter what they're trading off of their name, but that's just a whole thing I don't feel like arguing lol.

Thanks btw for this interesting conversation! 

Sadly, I don’t think an acting or influencer type of career (blog/vlog/podcast/Insta...) would have been possible. The influencer is a no brainier. 85% are basically built around selling things and to built a fan base by sharing massive chunks of your private life. Apart from the security risk, everything were she would look like maybe profiting from declaring something a favourite or similar would have been a no-go. As for acting- I don’t think it would have worked for long. Meghan does have a substantial „hater“ base, very similar to big influencers, and nowadays people are very much public about their dislike and very active. People write to companies, agencies and networks and complain and declare they will refrain from using products (be it real products or not watch a movie....). Tabloids and the internet would dissect every plot, her acting, gossip about romance on set, shady producers or co-stars. And there would always be the question of her only getting a role because she is the wife of Prince Harry. Which is justified. It is not as if she has left a massive acting career. She was a successful not leading actress on a tv series. Suits was not Friends though. And Meghan is no Grace Kelly. She could have done voice overs for nature/wildlife documentaries or even animated children movies. 

10 hours ago, adidas said:

There is a really huge difference between negative press and death threats though.

IMO they were rightfully petrified - here is an old article about a racist death threat which led to arrests (link at bottom of my post).

To go from having good security to nothing must have been very frightening for them, especially with a newborn to care for. 

While I do think they misportrayed some things in the interview, this is one where I can understand why they were angry and upset. I don’t have answers about how the situation should have been dealt with though - as people have pointed out, the complexities regarding location and funding are very murky. But when their lives were being threatened in such violent ways, I think the Queen could have dug into the coffers to protect them. I don’t know that any other members of the royal family faced this type of death threat? I’m happy to be corrected if they have been.

I think it’s very clear that Harry was (understandably) profoundly affected by seeing what his Mum went through, with the press hounding her when he was a child, and it playing a part in her death. Then seeing his wife go through the same, with the added element of violent death threats ... it just makes me think the palace could have done more.

https://www.who.com.au/prince-harry-beefs-up-security-after-death-threats

IIrc there have been numerous death and kidnapping threats to Prince George. One person even got two years of probation. The point is, Harry and Meghan very probably (and hopefully) have never experienced the level of hate Mail and comments before. And I am pretty sure it feels extremely scary. But as royals it was up to professionals to decide how much protection they needed. Being a Prince doesn’t change anything on Archie’s protection level till he is older and even then it might not lead to protection for him. Both build up a public profile with all the benefits and lows, before they met each other and endorsed it after. I don’t think the BRF has any moral obligations to still pay for it. It is not as if any of them stopped stepping out. If they would have stepped away from the public in the UK or wherever, really trying to not be on people’s radars and still wouldn’t be left alone that’s different. But they are actively keeping the scrutiny up in favour of public attention. 
I think the fact that the Queen didn’t issue a letter patent for Harry’s children must have been felt as a personal disregard in favour of Wiliam’s children. Which sucks. But I am actually a bit surprised it even came up. Surely Harry should have known for years that that’s the future for his children? I don’t agree with @Anna Bolinas - I think letting those title lines die out and not hand out new ones is a very good way for a subtle and smooth transformation. That’s what companies call “social job reducing” here. Not handing out positions someone retired from.

[Xanariel]

3 hours ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

When I was applying for landed immigrant status in Canada i had to send various documents including my passport , so I'm wondering if that applied to getting British citizenship and it wasn't explained clearly enough to said lady.

I could certainly see her passport and licence being taken off her for that kind of reason, and I can imagine it being a little alarming if you had to hand over your identity documents if you weren't sure why. 

But she was clearly trying to imply in the interview that all that stuff had been kept locked up away from her and she was essentially a prisoner...to which obviously a lot of us were going "Mate, you were literally doing a pregnant pap stroll in New York! You were sitting watching Serena play just after giving birth! You were driving around shopping districts in the UK quite happily! Exactly how did you sneak your stuff out to do that?" 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Xanariel

[Xanariel]

11 hours ago, adidas said:

There is a really huge difference between negative press and death threats though.

IMO they were rightfully petrified - here is an old article about a racist death threat which led to arrests (link at bottom of my post).

To go from having good security to nothing must have been very frightening for them, especially with a newborn to care for. 

While I do think they misportrayed some things in the interview, this is one where I can understand why they were angry and upset. I don’t have answers about how the situation should have been dealt with though - as people have pointed out, the complexities regarding location and funding are very murky. But when their lives were being threatened in such violent ways, I think the Queen could have dug into the coffers to protect them. I don’t know that any other members of the royal family faced this type of death threat? I’m happy to be corrected if they have been.

I think it’s very clear that Harry was (understandably) profoundly affected by seeing what his Mum went through, with the press hounding her when he was a child, and it playing a part in her death. Then seeing his wife go through the same, with the added element of violent death threats ... it just makes me think the palace could have done more.

https://www.who.com.au/prince-harry-beefs-up-security-after-death-threats

Death threats are definitely scary. But yep, other royal family members have received threats - most recently, a man was given a lengthy sentence for threatening to kill George at his school and encouraging others to do so or commit other acts of terrorism in the UK. 

That's another reason why Archie having a title might be to his detriment - being a prince makes you a symbol in many ways, and these terrorists were clearly trying to send a message through an attack on a child who also happened to be an heir to the throne that wouldn't apply for Archie. 

I would definitely be interested in finding out exactly when the security was cut off, because there was a lot of buzz in Charles' camp that he wanted to do an interview to refute a lot of the points they made, including explaining that he had privately funded Harry and Meghan for a lengthy amount of time until they secured the deals they needed to stand on their own feet. 

Obviously, that might not be true, but I do think Harry and Meghan have been fairly shifty over their finances (for one, claiming that their deals with Netflix were a last-ditch attempt to fund their security when we know they were chatting with Quibi and possibly other firms in the year prior to their departure). 

And I rather think that if you expect your relatives to fund your security, deciding to move to another country (ensuring your expenses will markedly increase), releasing a statement in which you tell your boss that you've decided to change your job role and will be "collaborating" with her going forward, and claim that you're entitled to said security by virtue of bring an IPP (which they were not) is probably not the way to get them to dip into their private money. 

[just_ordinary]

I think the interview did exactly what it was supposed to do. It brought them a lot of sympathy in the US and strengthened the perception their supporters already had. 
The BRF does well in not acknowledging them in any way publicly. And it would be even more helpful if any of their real leaks would be shut up.

Sadly, a certain shithead Piers Morgan feels as if it’s his mission to educate the world about their sleaziness. All he accomplishes is to look bitter and like the angry white man he probably is. And while it brings attention on him, he also gives them a constant stage. And he is no better making claims, but not giving the whole story. Please, Piers- what 17(!) false accusations/statements were made? I actually could think of a few, but I can also name them. 

I cannot wrap my head around Harry’s role in all of this. He should have made sure Meghan had a clue of what was going to happen. In terms of personal freedom, in terms of the relationships between the family members, in terms of hierarchy, in terms of money/gifts/businesses from friends, in terms of headlines and public perception (Camilla? Fergie?), in terms of titles for future children, in terms of how bashing the new girl is a big thing...  From my POV He knew. And either he was mislead into believing it would be different or he was delusional about what role and importance his family unit would have.
I mean, you can think you are prepared only to find out your not. That’s fair. Stepping back is fair too. But it shouldn’t end in such a public match. Hopefully, both sides can coexist without more drama soon.

[tabitha2]

I still want to know where he was when his wife was supposedly feeling so terribly isolated and in danger andnot listened to she wanted to commit suicide.

 

Beuller?Beuller? 

Edited April 7, 2021 by tabitha2

[samurai_sarah]

4 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

(snip)

Please, Piers- what 17(!) false accusations/statements were made? I actually could think of a few, but I can also name them. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439013/Piers-Morgan-highlights-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harrys-17-untruths-exaggerations.html

There are only five items on Piers Morgan's list that have been disproven. The rest is either exaggerated or unverifiable. Here are the five disproven ones:

1. Secret Wedding

2. Archie has birthright to be prince

3. Archie wouldn't get 24/7 security, because he isn't a prince

4. Meghan has not seen Samantha Markle in 20 years

5. Newspaper held story about Thomas Markle until Sunday before Meghan's wedding.

The above linked article is quite exhaustive, explaining every point on the 17 point long list, however...it is the Daily Mail, they love Piers Morgan and aren't precisely known for objectivity. Also getting Piers Morgan to publicly storm off his TV job is an achievement and a public service that Meghan, by merely existing, has rendered the UK.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

1 hour ago, samurai_sarah said:

Also getting Piers Morgan to publicly storm off his TV job is an achievement and a public service that Meghan, by merely existing, has rendered the UK.

I wonder if there are any nasty television presenters that she can help rid the USA of. If she wants to continue in a life of public service, that is.

[DalmatianCat]

5 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

 

I cannot wrap my head around Harry’s role in all of this. He should have made sure Meghan had a clue of what was going to happen. In terms of personal freedom, in terms of the relationships between the family members, in terms of hierarchy, in terms of money/gifts/businesses from friends, in terms of headlines and public perception (Camilla? Fergie?), in terms of titles for future children, in terms of how bashing the new girl is a big thing...  From my POV He knew. And either he was mislead into believing it would be different or he was delusional about what role and importance his family unit would have.
I mean, you can think you are prepared only to find out your not. That’s fair. Stepping back is fair too. But it shouldn’t end in such a public match. Hopefully, both sides can coexist without more drama soon.

Ditto!

Did Harry withhold info for fear she wouldn’t want to marry him because his life is so complicated like other girlfriends decided?

Is he really so far from reality that he had no idea what info to give her?

What really went on on that trip to Africa before they got serious where he supposedly laid everything out for her?

Meghan being clueless is understandable to an extent, but it makes it seem like they either have terrible communication as a couple or just woefully/willfully misunderstood things.

[Coconut Flan]

Was it an April Fool's joke that I read this morning that Piers Morgan was offered his job back and accepted?

[Xanariel]

56 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

Ditto!

Did Harry withhold info for fear she wouldn’t want to marry him because his life is so complicated like other girlfriends decided?

Is he really so far from reality that he had no idea what info to give her?

What really went on on that trip to Africa before they got serious where he supposedly laid everything out for her?

Meghan being clueless is understandable to an extent, but it makes it seem like they either have terrible communication as a couple or just woefully/willfully misunderstood things.

I really think that part of it was Harry promising Meghan the moon in the hopes of locking her down quickly, and part of it was him being so cosseted and indulged up to now that he really thought he could get Granny to grant them whatever they wanted. 

Since Diana's death, most of the public have had a soft spot for Harry and tended to infantilise him and excuse him (him repeatedly using racial slurs on video getting smoothed over, his cheating scandal at Eton overlooked, his naked hijinks in Las Vegas waved off as teenage antics despite him being a grown adult in the military). 

There's also been a bit of a tendency to treat him and William as one unit rather than the heir and the spare, with even Meghan's arrival heralded as the "Fab Four" rather than the future king and queen and two supporting royals. 

So I think Harry did grow up with the idea he was on a more equal footing with William than he really was. But as William married and had children, it must also have become increasingly obvious in the ways that William was going to stay important, whereas Harry faced a future of no longer being the adored, cheeky young prince but the aging uncle - Edward if he was lucky, Andrew if not. 

So when he met glamorous Meghan, I think he may have seen it as his chance to assert his place in the royal hierarchy, and led both her and himself to think that he had far more say over things than he actually did. 

Whereas Meghan may have approached it with a Hollywood mindset - the more popular actors get top billing, spin-offs and lucrative endorsement deals - and run into issues when she found out that Kate was still ranked higher no matter what their social media numbers were and there was far more shaking hands with pensioners in the rain than red carpet moments. 

[just_ordinary]

@Xanariel I agree about Harry, but I doubt that Meghan (or anyone with the resources and life exposure) actually believed the royal pecking order is built on popularity. I could see them thinking that their glamour and freshness (if you want to be mean you could say Hollywood + mixed race sounds very much like a face lift for marketing purposes of the BRF) could secure them a more safe place. And I think Harry and Wiliam believed they were above the alleged little wars between the households. Wiliam and Kate probably woke up when they realised Meghan did make Kate look bad. A women that was still keen to learn and still took a slow pace after almost 10 years (and also a disastrous decline in fashion sense) couldn’t hold up against the eagerness, confidence and comfort Meghan displayed in the beginning. This narrative hurt Kate’s image, that was already being work shy and missing a lot of marks fashion wise, as much as it hurt Meghan in the long run. Harry and Meghan woke up later and probably felt personal attacked because no one came out in their favour. 
And I think they didn’t foresee how badly their words might impact their personal relationships. Now, Princess Anne is set out to be the racist commenter (the explanation we got makes it pretty unlikely and sounds like an unrelated incident but the tabloids still run with it and not just in the UK). I am sure Anne, Peter and Zara are not amused and if they call Harry and Meghan to ask if they are ok it might have a very different meaning......

[Grandma D]

8 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439013/Piers-Morgan-highlights-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harrys-17-untruths-exaggerations.html

There are only five items on Piers Morgan's list that have been disproven. The rest is either exaggerated or unverifiable. Here are the five disproven ones:

1. Secret Wedding

2. Archie has birthright to be prince

3. Archie wouldn't get 24/7 security, because he isn't a prince

4. Meghan has not seen Samantha Markle in 20 years

5. Newspaper held story about Thomas Markle until Sunday before Meghan's wedding.

The above linked article is quite exhaustive, explaining every point on the 17 point long list, however...it is the Daily Mail, they love Piers Morgan and aren't precisely known for objectivity. Also getting Piers Morgan to publicly storm off his TV job is an achievement and a public service that Meghan, by merely existing, has rendered the UK.

 sister  only changed her name to Markle after she started dating Harry. Couldn't get any help when she reached out. Didn't have any help adjusting to the role. Passport taken. Couldn't travel. It goes on and on.

[DalmatianCat]

8 hours ago, Xanariel said:

I really think that part of it was Harry promising Meghan the moon in the hopes of locking her down quickly, and part of it was him being so cosseted and indulged up to now that he really thought he could get Granny to grant them whatever they wanted. 

Since Diana's death, most of the public have had a soft spot for Harry and tended to infantilise him and excuse him (him repeatedly using racial slurs on video getting smoothed over, his cheating scandal at Eton overlooked, his naked hijinks in Las Vegas waved off as teenage antics despite him being a grown adult in the military). 

There's also been a bit of a tendency to treat him and William as one unit rather than the heir and the spare, with even Meghan's arrival heralded as the "Fab Four" rather than the future king and queen and two supporting royals. 

So I think Harry did grow up with the idea he was on a more equal footing with William than he really was. But as William married and had children, it must also have become increasingly obvious in the ways that William was going to stay important, whereas Harry faced a future of no longer being the adored, cheeky young prince but the aging uncle - Edward if he was lucky, Andrew if not. 

So when he met glamorous Meghan, I think he may have seen it as his chance to assert his place in the royal hierarchy, and led both her and himself to think that he had far more say over things than he actually did. 

Whereas Meghan may have approached it with a Hollywood mindset - the more popular actors get top billing, spin-offs and lucrative endorsement deals - and run into issues when she found out that Kate was still ranked higher no matter what their social media numbers were and there was far more shaking hands with pensioners in the rain than red carpet moments. 

Yikes...I’d never heard of the cheating scandal!!! And he’s had a lot...

And I love your perspective. I’m American but have never really bought that Harry felt neglected growing up because he wasn’t the heir. I think both Charles and Diana always made a point to treat them equally, or as a unit as you say.

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by samurai_sarah
Removed double quote

[tabitha2]

Diana always considered Harry her baby and coddled/spoiled him a little more. She knew the Windsor’s would take care of William because of his position. 

[Anna Bolinas]

23 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I don’t agree with @Anna Bolinas - I think letting those title lines die out and not hand out new ones is a very good way for a subtle and smooth transformation. That’s what companies call “social job reducing” here. Not handing out positions someone retired from.

Oh, I actually agree with that. I don't think that they need to be giving these titles out anymore either, and in fact, I think they should take away more of them now if that's what they're really planning on doing. Rather than saying, "Well maybe eventually we'll limit the official royal family members to the king/queen, the Prince of Wales, the Prince of Wales's first child, and that child's family," they should just do that now and get it over with. And if they had done that earlier, then some of the hurt feelings could've been avoided--or at least, it would be a less ambiguous situation. But when I said Archie could've been made a prince, I don't think he actually needs it. I was just trying to get in the possible mindset of Harry and Meghan.

6 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

I’m American but have never really bought that Harry felt neglected growing up because he wasn’t the heir. I think both Charles and Diana always made a point to treat them equally, or as a unit as you say.

Though ironically, as @Xanariel points out, treating Harry as a unit with his older brother may be part of the problem. The biggest problem in my opinion is, of course, the idea that because William was born first, that automatically makes him more important than his sibling, but. Obviously the royals don't care about my opinion lol. It would've benefited Harry more if they had made it clearer to him that, while he was as important as William on a personal level, he was not going to be king and so he did not need to have the same level of public importance. And maybe Charles and Diana did try that, but between the divorce and Diana's death, I think that the public did at first lump them together as the two poor princes bereft of their mother. And then Harry also got a bit more leeway with his antics, precisely because he was never going to be king and so it could just be an amusing tabloid story rather than a serious scandal.

But also in my opinion, this doesn't seem unique to Harry. Younger royal siblings, especially second children, historically seem to have had trouble with their position vis a vis the oldest sibling. And I say "sibling" because I think it can even apply to someone like Edward VII who, even though he was the heir, was frequently compared to his oldest sister Victoria growing up and found wanting. Both George V and George VI were second sons thrust into the spotlight and finding it hard to make adjustments, with the specter of the older brother always looming over them (literally, in George VI's case). Princess Margaret was notorious for her own struggles and scandals, much like Harry. And the less said about Prince Andrew, the better. Hopefully William and Kate are thinking long and hard about how they are going to treat Charlotte and Louis in comparison to George.

[Xanariel]

24 minutes ago, Anna Bolinas said:

But also in my opinion, this doesn't seem unique to Harry. Younger royal siblings, especially second children, historically seem to have had trouble with their position vis a vis the oldest sibling. And I say "sibling" because I think it can even apply to someone like Edward VII who, even though he was the heir, was frequently compared to his oldest sister Victoria growing up and found wanting. Both George V and George VI were second sons Hopefully William and Kate are thinking long and hard about how they are going to treat Charlotte and Louis in comparison to George.

I'm actually quite hopeful that the next generation won't have such a difficult dynamic because the expectations of the spares will be different. 

I think a lot of the problem for previous generations is that the pathways for spares dramatically shifted in the 20th century. Previously, you could be married off to secure a grand alliance and live in your own court out of your sibling's shadow, go to war or be assigned a colonial post in your parents' empire, be given to the Church, or marry a noble with vast estates that needed full time management. 

Now there are far less royal marriage opportunities (and the BRF doesn't tend to marry into foreign royal families now anyway). The aristocrats don't really want the scrutiny and responsibility of a royal role, and none of the spares seem really religiously-inclined. You can have a military career, and Harry and Andrew certainly did well in those - but after a while, you get promoted into a desk job and I don't think either had the brains or character to do that when they could no longer be in the action. 

The issue may be that the older royal spares didn't really have roles available outside of being the supporting acts to their sibling, but they also weren't really prepared for the idea that they'd have jobs either. Margaret certainly wasn't going to work with her gender and rank in the 50s/60s, but though both Edward and Andrew were educated, neither seemed raised with the environment or skills to seek and hold a normal job (though Edward certainly tried, bless him). 

I think the plan likely was more for Harry to have a career in the military (certainly the BRF were reportedly surprised when he announced he was leaving) with royal appearances on the side. Obviously things went differently and Harry struggled to adjust to the idea that being a full-time royal meant he was never going to be the boss. 

But Kate will be the first queen-consort to hold a university degree and both of her parents worked. She seems fairly invested in her kids' education and they'll have grown up with a load of royal cousins who aren't titled. If Charlotte and Louis get even half-way decent grades, they'll be a shoo-in for Russell Group universities and can go off and have their own careers where neither George or Dad calls the shots. 

[Lollipopgirl]

Just wondering if either or both of them will attend Prince Philips funeral. I’m pretty sure Harry will but not sure about Meghan.

[kachuu]

While I know this is a tragic event, the media is going to micro-comment on every little detail if/when one/both show up.

And we thought the brothers 1st time getting together would be the statue for Diana....

 

Meghan should be pretty far along at this point in her pregnancy though for a summer due date. Traveling this late in pregnancy especially that far may be unwise. Either way, she'll get criticism.

[DalmatianCat]

I’m guessing at this point Harry probably wishes not waiting at least two more months before giving that interview...or maybe relived that he got it out because now it would just look tacky.

[viii]

I am sure they will both attend. If Meghan is due in the summer, she’s either late in her second trimester or has just entered her third. I’m sure they can fly privately with their doctor on board. Either way though you’re right - she will be criticized no matter what she chooses to do. 

[anjulibai]

I don't think she'll attend, but we'll see. I agree, she, and Harry, will be criticized no matter what they do. 

[ADoyle90815]

I think no matter what they do about Philip's funeral, they'll be criticized for it. Harry might still go alone especially if Meghan is too far along in her pregnancy for doctors to allow her to fly that far.

[Grandma D]

This is why not airing your dirty laundry for all the world is wise. How awkward now for them being so petty and entitled when life is short and Harry's family has devoted themselves to public service and Meghan just couldn't live up to it. I wish she had more class for Harry's sake.