Meghan and Harry 6: Everything about this Is Kind of Cringe

[viii]

2 hours ago, louisa05 said:

I think it’s because Harry is continually going on about how being royal is destroying him. 

His complaints are valid and removing his title won't change anything. He was born a prince and has been raised his entire life in the public eye. Even if his title is stripped from him, he will never be able to live a normal life, because he will always be Prince Harry to people. 

[tabitha2]

Then he should stop trying to so desperately (and badly) Cosplay a normal! guy!  
 

He is trying to be something he is not. Being a dime dozen California socialite that does philanthropy on the side and donates money and the occasional gala appearance  would be a better fit and more natural and probably make him happier in the long run if let’s it. 
 

 

[Xanariel]

I don't think Harry should get his titles stripped unless they're doing a general clear-out that includes Andrew. I think the mere existence of the petition and the general fall in his popularity polling indicates that he's really not got a lot of support in the UK, which will matter if he was hoping the BRF would be pressured into granting any of his complaints. But I don't think he needs to be punished, particularly as his mental state does not seem to be in the greatest shape at the moment. 

I do think he and Meghan should stop using their titles in America, but only because it looks as grandiose and ridiculous as the Duke of Windsor's declining years, and frankly does rather undercut their claim that they don't care about such things. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, viii said:

His complaints are valid and removing his title won't change anything. He was born a prince and has been raised his entire life in the public eye. Even if his title is stripped from him, he will never be able to live a normal life, because he will always be Prince Harry to people. 

I think some of his complaints are valid, even if I question how he doing the complaining.  Others he's so contradictory about it's impossible to take his side even if one wanted to.  

I completely agree that title or not he is and will forever be Prince Harry.  Even if they stripped his title they can't strip him of his royal upbringing which makes him who he is.  We're all the sum totals of our experiences and especially the ones from childhood which affected our development for good or for ill.  You can call him Billy, Steve, or Harry the Wonder Dog and he's always going to be Prince Harry to the world and himself.  A normal life isn't in the cards for him no matter what he or anyone else does.

The world won't allow it and he's not equipped for it.  Which, IMO, is fine.  He should be who he is and do whatever charitable work he can in his capacity since that what he seems to want to do.  He can make the world a better place by using his platform to actually help people who need it if he can turn the focus outside himself for work and then bitch about his family and how unfair life is behind closed doors like the rest of us.

 

4 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

granting any of his complaints.

Even if they wanted to I have no idea how they would address their complaints without a time machine.  Unless I've missed it Harry doesn't seem to have a coherent list of things he'd like changed in the name of progress or anything....just a lot of complaints about past issues which other than an apology from his family if they've wronged him Idk what else they can do.  An apology that, if warranted and granted, should not be public anyway.  

[Ozlsn]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

He should be who he is and do whatever charitable work he can in his capacity since that what he seems to want to do.  He can make the world a better place by using his platform to actually help people who need it if he can turn the focus outside himself for work and then bitch about his family and how unfair life is behind closed doors like the rest of us.

Yes, so much in agreement with this. If he could do his therapy in private (and without involving Oprah in any capacity) and focus on moving forward rather than obsessively raking over the coals in public he - and Meghan - have the potential to achieve something (or stay as B list celebrities, whatever). 

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Unless I've missed it Harry doesn't seem to have a coherent list of things he'd like changed in the name of progress or anything

I honestly don't think he's at a point where he's thinking that clearly - it feels like he's lashing out about everything that's built up in him over the past 30 years, and it's not really coming out coherently because it's an emotional download right now.

[EmCatlyn]

15 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

The petition is a stupid idea. There is a reason we haven’t seen titles removed in a long time. As of now only high treason or something similar would justify such action. The second BRF and Parliament take more muddy reasons into account, they open themselves up to a flood of similar cases. Andrew and Fergie are still several steps ahead in terms of shadiness and actually legal grey areas. H&M are undignified, whiny and talk shit (or uncomfortable truths whatever you prefer). They display a big amount of hypocrisy. But being an idiot who cannot shut his mouth doesn’t qualify to get stripped. A similar argument could be made against Charles and Camilla- they truly brought the monarchy to the brink of implosion. 
The only way to get them rid of their titles is them giving it all up (as if, that would be too consistent with their claims) or a big culling with several people being cut out. Peter Philips is another one that comes to mind (has exploited his royal background for money). This petition will do more harm than good for the BRF.

Her argument is also weak. Harry can speak freely and talking badly about the BRF and accusing them of whatever is not punishable (otherwise a big chunk of the British society would find themselves in court/prison). People tend to overestimate the impact of their accusations. No one really cares. They are already looking so bad and desperate. Loose ends and plot holes at every corner. Their own actions in the beginning (you know when they actually wanted to stay royals and go on tours) undermine whatever they say. The UK is treating it as a big Soap Opera and thankfully are not annoyed enough by the BRF to actually vote them out.

I think the petition is for Harry to give up his title.  That is not the same as having it removed (which, I agree, would be very complicated as well as unfair).

There is a certain logic to Harry giving up the title since he insists being royal, and raising his kids to be royal, is not what he wants.

I do think that the argument that if he gives up his title there will be no more problems is probably wrong.

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, viii said:

It's funny that people are wanting Harry and Meghan to lose their titles when there are so much worse things that have happened in the royal family (just in the 1900's!) and nobody had an outcry to this scale. Duke of Windsor - Nazi sympathizer. Charles - the whole Camilla/Diana debacle. Prince Andrew - pedophile. 

But yes - Harry is the real issue here. ?

Most people did not know that Duke of Windsor was a Nazi sympathizer.  And he had already lost his original title (King) and essentially been exiled.  

There were a lot of people who thought Charles should lose his place in the succession because of the scandal with Camilla.  Some are still saying it.

The main scandal with Prince Andrew seems to be his friendship with a very questionable guy.  I may have missed something, but I don’t think there has been any proof that he had sex with underage girls.  Wasn’t there something about the girl being underage in some US states but not according to UK law at the time?   Not trying to defend him, just pointing out that the “sex with underage girls” accusation may not have enough traction for a big protest against him, especially since it has been made clear that he is being restricted from participating in any official royal stuff. (He pushed himself forward when Phillip died, but that was a “family” thing.)

The thing about Harry is that he is loudly calling attention to himself and is perceived as being disloyal to the Queen whom everyone likes nowadays. 

I don’t think Harry should lose his title.  I am just explaining why people are louder about it than about Andrew.  They feel hurt and disappointed in him.

Personally, I feel that while he shouldn’t have his title taken away, he would be doing the right thing, and I would respect him, if he gave it up voluntarily.  I was really turned off when I discovered that instead of opting to not give Archie a title, they were actually upset he wasn’t a prince.  How can you complain about how difficult it is to be a royal while at the same time be so attached to the titles?  It doesn’t make sense to me.
??‍♀️

[Anna Bolinas]

4 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

The main scandal with Prince Andrew seems to be his friendship with a very questionable guy.  I may have missed something, but I don’t think there has been any proof that he had sex with underage girls.  Wasn’t there something about the girl being underage in some US states but not according to UK law at the time?   Not trying to defend him, just pointing out that the “sex with underage girls” accusation may not have enough traction for a big protest against him, especially since it has been made clear that he is being restricted from participating in any official royal stuff. (He pushed himself forward when Phillip died, but that was a “family” thing.)

The thing about Harry is that he is loudly calling attention to himself and is perceived as being disloyal to the Queen whom everyone likes nowadays. 

I don’t think Harry should lose his title.  I am just explaining why people are louder about it than about Andrew.  They feel hurt and disappointed in him.

 

Andrew stands accused of raping Virginia Roberts Giuffre when she was 17 in 2001. The infamous photo of Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Giuffre comes from that alleged encounter in that year. Technically under British age of consent laws, she was over the age of consent, but the rape and trafficking parts are still crimes. Giuffre has also accused Andrew of participating in an orgy on Little Saint James in the Virgin Islands with her, Epstein, and several underage Eastern European girls. I'm not sure what specific ages they were, but again, raping trafficked girls, even if they are just barely over the legal age of consent, is still a crime. That's a bit more than just being friends with a "questionable guy."

And I think there is still a lot of outrage over Andrew's shenanigans. Furthermore, I think it's ludicrous to even compare Harry and Andrew. I'm not accusing you of doing that, since I know you said you don't think Harry should lose his titles, but the idea that people are more upset because Harry is talking shit about his family than about Andrew never facing legal consequences for his despicable actions is insane to me. I would choose Harry over Andrew any day of the week.

And that's also why I feel very little sympathy for the royal family as an institution because they have done the bare minimum to punish Andrew for his crimes, and yet they want to cry foul because Harry and Meghan are saying mean words about them. Take the beam out of your own eye and all that.

[EmCatlyn]

33 minutes ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Andrew stands accused of raping Virginia Roberts Giuffre when she was 17 in 2001. The infamous photo of Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Giuffre comes from that alleged encounter in that year. Technically under British age of consent laws, she was over the age of consent, but the rape and trafficking parts are still crimes. Giuffre has also accused Andrew of participating in an orgy on Little Saint James in the Virgin Islands with her, Epstein, and several underage Eastern European girls. I'm not sure what specific ages they were, but again, raping trafficked girls, even if they are just barely over the legal age of consent, is still a crime. That's a bit more than just being friends with a "questionable guy."

And I think there is still a lot of outrage over Andrew's shenanigans. Furthermore, I think it's ludicrous to even compare Harry and Andrew. I'm not accusing you of doing that, since I know you said you don't think Harry should lose his titles, but the idea that people are more upset because Harry is talking shit about his family than about Andrew never facing legal consequences for his despicable actions is insane to me. I would choose Harry over Andrew any day of the week.

And that's also why I feel very little sympathy for the royal family as an institution because they have done the bare minimum to punish Andrew for his crimes, and yet they want to cry foul because Harry and Meghan are saying mean words about them. Take the beam out of your own eye and all that.

Thanks for the info about Andrew. I have only a vague idea of the accusations,  and I certainly was not defending him.  I was just trying to explain why the public outcry against him may not be as great as that against Harry (assuming that it is—I haven’t followed Andrew enough to compare).

I think we should distinguish between what the royals do and what some Royal Fans do.  As far as I know, there has been no suggestion that the royal family wants to take away Harry’s title.  It has all come from members of the public.  

What I was trying to get at in my previous message is that people who are angry at Harry are responding to what he is saying (not what is said about him) and they may be harder on him because they liked him and are disappointed.  Unlike earlier “scandals,” this one involves the actions of someone that much of the public had an emotional investment in.  

As for the royal family, I kind of think they are dealing with the Andrew situation and the Harry situation in much the same way: they are doing and saying as little as possible.  Granted that what Andrew is accused of having done is a lot worse than anything that Harry has done (so far as we know), the main message from Buckingham Palace seems to be, “We are not going to discuss this.”  
 

[Xanariel]

I'd say there was a pretty significant public outcry at the time when Andrew did his disastrous interview. There were definitely MPs, not just random members of the public, discussing the removal of his titles. He was hastily stuffed out of sight, and aside from Philip's funeral, hasn't been in the spotlight too much, so the public isn't reminded too much of him. 

Secondly, while the victim is directly accusing Andrew of trafficking and sexual assault, he's only been asked to speak to the FBI, not formally charged. The BRF is therefore not openly standing in the way by refusing to extradite him - he's just not gone to the US to answer their questions, which is erfectly within his right. As the UK was essentially told to go fuck itself by the US in a recent high-profile extradition case, there's not a large public appetite to force Andrew to face American justice even if they did upgrade their request. 

I also think one thing that may factor in to an emphasise on Harry in particular losing his title is the fact that he explicitly links it to his complaints. If Andrew was saying "the lofty life of a prince isolated me so I had no choice but to rely on Epstein's friendship ", the reaction would immediately be "so quit the job, you nonce, and stay away from teenage girls". 

With Harry, there's a strong sense of both hypocrisy, self-pity and flat-out contradictions in what he says, which I think would always go down worse in the UK. Rich people whining about how hard they have it has not historically been a strong selling point here - there's a reason the Queen Mother's "now I can look the East End in the face" is cited as one of the best moves by the BRF. 

Whereas with Harry, because he explicitly goes on about how awful the impact of being a prince is on him specifically, understandably there's a bit of a reaction of "well, why stay one then?" It kind of goes down like:

Harry: I was determined to escape the confines of royal life! Please ignore the fact that my own statement on leaving said that I wanted to continue enjoying all the royal perks and explicitly put down that my main grievance was my inability to exploit my title for money. 

Harry: I can never live a normal life! No, a ranch in a remote location in America wouldn't draw me less attention than a $14 million mansion in California. How can I ensure my son doesn't grow up like an animal in a zoo if I'm not fronting television series with Oprah and giving interviews left, right and centre? 

Harry: I was never allowed to ride a bike or do other normal things! Ignore the pictures of my childhood self doing exactly that. I want differently for Archie - so why the fuck did my family not make him a prince? 

Harry: I was so burned out from having to perform royal duties and tours. Ignore the fact that my pitifully low numbers were less than what elderly minor royals were doing in their 70s. But someone suggested that Meghan stick to her old career after marriage instead of becoming a working royal - can you imagine? 

Harry: Meghan and I don't care about stuffy old ranks and titles! That's why every activity we do in a country that has no title system involves us slapping "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex" on prominently. That's also why we threw a bitchfit saying that the Queen doesn't own the word "royal". 

Harry is famous and recognisable, but he's also not bound to be in the spotlight. Harry the American expat who's been living in the middle of nowhere for 10 years just isn't going to have the same media interest as Prince Harry, red carpet regular. Securing a quiet place in the middle of nowhere would certainly have been cheaper security-wise than plopping down millions for a mansion while crying that the UK taxpayer wouldn't keep forking out to pay for your security after you quit your job. 

As he repeatedly says that his life is so hard because he's a prince, people are naturally going to be like "so why not officially drop the title and spare us the whinging?"

Edited June 2, 2021 by Xanariel

[just_ordinary]

People forget that the Guiffre accusations aren’t that new. They are out there for more than a decade now. It’s unclear if he is guilty enough for criminal persecution but I don’t think anyone reasonable would let him off the hook morally. But he has dabbled into grey areas business wise too. Exploiting his royal connections is a much better (meaning operative regulation is easier to define because it will set precedent) reason to get him kicked than morally questionable behaviour (at best) which is harder to set in writing as definition (that’s why you can be found not guilt but still be very guilty morally).
I do agree that there is no proof the BRF is protecting Andrew in any way while throwing the others before the wolves. Apart from not talking about him and asking him to hide. They never commented on the headlines he made (and he made BAD ones) just the same as for H&M.

@EmCatlyn but why make the petition at all then? It’s not as if he gets the poll send or has to take notice? She could have people vote on her YT then. Sorry, but LCC is such an attention seeking braggart, while all her „intel“ was already published before she brought it up. 

[viii]

10 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

And that's also why I feel very little sympathy for the royal family as an institution because they have done the bare minimum to punish Andrew for his crimes, and yet they want to cry foul because Harry and Meghan are saying mean words about them. Take the beam out of your own eye and all that.

Say it louder for those in the back ?

8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Granted that what Andrew is accused of having done is a lot worse than anything that Harry has done (so far as we know), the main message from Buckingham Palace seems to be, “We are not going to discuss this.”  

Even after you've been told the heinous behavior of Andrew, you're still doubling down and trying to convince us that Harry is worse. Wowwww. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Granted that what Andrew is accused of having done is a lot worse than anything that Harry has done (so far as we know

Honestly this is a disgusting comment.  "As far as we know."   So because he's having emotional issues and not handling it well in the press he gets an "as far as we know" comment about raping sex trafficked teenagers.  As far as I know no one on this thread is a rapist but if I put that disclaimer on it it would be pretty fucking insulting to even imply that it's possible, we just don't know.

And sorry...calling Epstein "questionable" after he's been convicted of sexual crimes against minors means you don't think sex crimes against children are that bad or you're willfully obtuse.  Either way you have no credibility imo after those statements.  

[Expectopatronus]

It might not be fair but I do wonder how much Megan is influencing Harry. He didn’t do overly well in school, which doesn’t necessarily mean anything but could mean that critical thinking is an area where he is still developing, he lost a parent at a very young age, was harassed by the media and has had all of his mistakes smeared across the media. Megan seems to have strong ideas of what she wants and doesn’t want and isn’t afraid to state her wishes. This isn’t a bad thing but it does mean that unless she is with someone who is equally strong, she could run roughshod over them. 

[Xanariel]

45 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

It might not be fair but I do wonder how much Megan is influencing Harry. He didn’t do overly well in school, which doesn’t necessarily mean anything but could mean that critical thinking is an area where he is still developing, he lost a parent at a very young age, was harassed by the media and has had all of his mistakes smeared across the media. Megan seems to have strong ideas of what she wants and doesn’t want and isn’t afraid to state her wishes. This isn’t a bad thing but it does mean that unless she is with someone who is equally strong, she could run roughshod over them. 

I think Meghan's leading the way, but not running rodshod over Harry. Rather, I think that he was already sulky and entitled before she arrived on the scene, and she merely offered a new direction and branding he could go in once they both decided the current set-up wasn't for them. 

Harry's definitely not the brains of the pair, but I think he's more than happy to go along with Meghan's ideas and add his own - I don't think their cosplay in a military cemetery was her plan at all. 

[viii]

I think Meghan is influencing him but Harry has openly spoken about the restraints of royal life years before Meghan was ever in the picture. She's just given him an avenue to escape down. I also think all of his issues really bubbled to the surface once he became a father. 

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@EmCatlyn but why make the petition at all then? It’s not as if he gets the poll send or has to take notice? She could have people vote on her YT then. Sorry, but LCC is such an attention seeking braggart, while all her „intel“ was already published before she brought it up. 

Oh, I totally agree that LCC is a joke.  However, the idea that Harry could/should give up his title has (some) merit.  It would be different from having it stripped away from him.  Whether or not he even hears about the poll, the idea is an interesting one.

As for Andrew, I think you are right also.  

2 hours ago, viii said:

 Even after you've been told the heinous behavior of Andrew, you're still doubling down and trying to convince us that Harry is worse. Wowwww. 

Huh????   Where did I say that Harry is “worse”?   I have tried very hard not to compare the two.  The passage you quote was talking about how the royal family probably sees it.  I was saying that Harry’s stuff is in the news now. Andrews stuff is less in the news. And in both cases the royals have taken the same tactic.  They say very little publicly.

I kind of feel sympathetic toward Harry and I have no patience with Andrew (about whom I know no good).  But it is Harry who is in the news right now, and I do criticize him.

 

[TheOneAndOnly]

When it somes to the press and Prince Andrew, I really wish they'd quit acting like he was chasing toddlers around a playground. It was a 17 year old prostitute. Bad situation still, but different.

As for Harry and Meghan and the kids having titles, I suspect that Meghan is the one wanting it. I imagine that if she can't be the one with the prestigious title, she can at least be known as "mother of Prince or Princess" and be a little happy with the bragging rights.

 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Honestly this is a disgusting comment.  "As far as we know."   So because he's having emotional issues and not handling it well in the press he gets an "as far as we know" comment about raping sex trafficked teenagers.  As far as I know no one on this thread is a rapist but if I put that disclaimer on it it would be pretty fucking insulting to even imply that it's possible, we just don't know.

And sorry...calling Epstein "questionable" after he's been convicted of sexual crimes against minors means you don't think sex crimes against children are that bad or you're willfully obtuse.  Either way you have no credibility imo after those statements.  

That was not what I meant.  My “as far as we know” addressed the seriousness, not the type of offense.  I wasn’t trying to suggest that Harry might have committed any of the crimes of which Andrew is accused.

I just meant that we don’t know the full story about Harry any more than we know about most things with the royals.  (He could have been growing pot on the Sandringham estate ?or engaged in some dishonest financial deal.)  It was less an aside about what Harry might have done (which I would never suggest was as serious as rape or child molesting) and more an aside about how we rarely have enough information.

As for Andrew, I repeat that I don’t know much about him and care even less.  I have not been following the Epstein scandal or Andrew’s involvement.  My understanding was that Andrew’s final mistake was not repudiating his friendship with Epstein.  That is why I made the comment about Epstein being “questionable.”  I was focusing less on what Epstein has/hasn’t done than about why Andrew’s failure to speak up against him might have less traction with the public right now than what Harry had been doing/saying.

Please keep in mind that my posts have focused on trying to analyze why the media/popular sentiment seems harsher on Harry than on Andrew.   In doing so, I try to look at things from the perspective of the different people I am talking about.  It is an effort to be objective and to see different points of view.  I am sorry if that effort affects my “credibility” or my “moral reputation” or whatever.  

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, TheOneAndOnly said:

When it somes to the press and Prince Andrew, I really wish they'd quit acting like he was chasing toddlers around a playground. It was a 17 year old prostitute. Bad situation still, but different.

As for Harry and Meghan and the kids having titles, I suspect that Meghan is the one wanting it. I imagine that if she can't be the one with the prestigious title, she can at least be known as "mother of Prince or Princess" and be a little happy with the bragging rights.

 

But the 17-year-olds were not willing, and that's bad enough even with UK age of consent. 

At best, Andrew might claim that he had sex with the victim believing she was willing. Matt Groening of 'The Simpsons' fame had the same victim give him a foot massage when she was 16, and she describes fangirling over him while she did it. No doubt Groening and Andrew would both claim her attitude made them believe she wasn't forced - but neither of these grown, powerful men explain why they wouldn't question a teenager performing these acts or indeed travelling with Epstein in the first place. 

I wouldn't place the obsession with titles solely on Meghan. Harry has tantrumed a lot about not getting what he feels his family deserves. 

Just one example - the Queen was giving her Christmas speech. She usually includes photos in the background to reference certain themes or events she's incorporating - it may be photos of relatives who got married that year, new grandchildren, someone in a uniform, her parents etc. 

She chose that year to emphasise the succession after a year where there seemed to have been some health scares in the family. Her photos were of Philip, her father, Charles/Camilla and the Cambridges - the past and present succession. She didn't include the Yorks, the Wessexes, or Anne's lot, despite the fact that she is apparently much closer to them than the Cambridges.

So guess who alone then throws a strop because his family not included means that they were specifically and deliberately snubbed?

Edited June 2, 2021 by Xanariel

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, TheOneAndOnly said:

When it somes to the press and Prince Andrew, I really wish they'd quit acting like he was chasing toddlers around a playground. It was a 17 year old prostitute victim of sex trafficking. Bad situation still, but different.

FTFY.  

[viii]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Huh????   Where did I say that Harry is “worse”?  

You didn't say he was worse, you said as far as we know. It was a gross comment to make. There is a world of difference between Andrew and Harry. 

1 hour ago, TheOneAndOnly said:

When it somes to the press and Prince Andrew, I really wish they'd quit acting like he was chasing toddlers around a playground. It was a 17 year old prostitute. Bad situation still, but different.

Andrew raped a minor that was a victim of sex trafficking. There is not a single excuse you can make for his behaviour. 

42 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

So guess who alone then throws a strop because his family not included means that they were specifically and deliberately snubbed?

I can kind of understand his issue. For years, the focus has been the Queen, Charles, William, and Harry. The public interest has grown even more once William and Harry married and the babies started arriving. For the Queen's addresses, she has typically had pictures of Philip, Charles, William & family, and Harry & family. He has generally been included so for him to be removed during a strained time where he has publicly said he feels "specifically and deliberately snubbed", I can see why it would look that way to him. 

I like Liz but I think it's stupid that she uses pictures in her addresses to send a *hidden message*. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, TheOneAndOnly said:

When it somes to the press and Prince Andrew, I really wish they'd quit acting like he was chasing toddlers around a playground. It was a 17 year old prostitute. Bad situation still, but different.

As for Harry and Meghan and the kids having titles, I suspect that Meghan is the one wanting it. I imagine that if she can't be the one with the prestigious title, she can at least be known as "mother of Prince or Princess" and be a little happy with the bragging rights.

 

I agree that Andrew isn’t accused of chasing toddlers.  I wish the popular discourse (and the law) distinguished between pedophilia (sexual interest in pre-pubescent children) and hebephilia/ephebephilia (sexual interest in pubescent minors) and further recognized the difference between hebephilia and statutory rape of post-pubescent legal minors.

 I wish this not because I wish to minimize the horrible, disgusting, appalling highly immoral and questionable act of an adult having sex with or molesting any kind of minor but because IMHO, clearer terminology/classifications can help us understand who is at risk around these offenders and how we can address the problems caused by these deviations. Further, I think that not having these distinctions invites responses questioning the validity of pretty serious accusations because “he isn’t out chasing toddlers.” 

(As for the 17-year-old in question, I wouldn’t classify her as a prostitute, but I don’t know enough about the case.)

Turning to Harry and Meghan and the question of royal titles, we can only speculate, since nothing they say about this really makes sense.  My speculation  is that Meghan wanted the title of “prince” for her baby, and Harry had never really thought about it until it came up.  At that point I think Harry may have seen the lack of a title for his son as yet one more disadvantage of being the “spare.” But I am only guessing.

In any case, the Oprah interview made it clear that both of them minded that Archie wasn’t made a prince.  

Edited June 2, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Typo

[EmCatlyn]

41 minutes ago, viii said:

You didn't say he was worse, you said as far as we know. It was a gross comment to make. There is a world of difference between Andrew and Harry. 

I have already explained this comment, and (again) I am sorry if it read as if I was thinking that Harry might have committed offenses equal to what Andrew is accused at.  My thought at the time was that we really don’t know enough about any of them and I threw that comment in because I was talking about how the royals don’t talk— so what we know about any of them is “as far as we know.”  I was vaguely thinking of stuff like his being involved in questionable deals, but I wasn’t intending to suggest he was guilty of anything.

My only problem with Harry is that he seems to have no consideration for his father, brother and grandmother.  I do not think he should lose his title; I do not think he deserves anything punitive except what he has rightly earned — the anger and mistrust from his family.  I find the whole thing very sad for all of them.

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Typo

[viii]

22 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

My speculation  pis that Meghan wanted the title of “prince” for her baby, and Harry had never really thought about it until it came up.  At that point I think Harry may have seen the lack of a title for his son as yet one more disadvantage of being the “spare.” But I am only guessing.

In any case, the Oprah interview made it clear that both of them minded that Archie wasn’t made a prince.  

I don't think it was the prince title that they were gunning for, it was the security that came with it. If it was a title that was the issue, then I'm confused as to why they would think that because even us peasants knew that no patent letters had been issued before she gave birth. 

2 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

My only problem with Harry is that he seems to have no consideration for his father, brother and grandmother.  I do not think he should lose his title; I do not think he deserves anything punitive except what he has rightly earned — the anger and mistrust from his family.  I find the whole thing very sad for all of them.

Statements like this is putting all the blame on to Harry, though. In this whole circle that is their family/business, you can't tell me that Harry's behaviour is the sole issue. His family might have anger and mistrust from his actions but I would guess he has that and a lot more from their actions. The BRF is a vicious cycle and Harry is the first to try and break it - there's bound to be missteps and mistakes. 

I haven't been super active in this thread lately but it doesn't seem to matter - Harry was still in my dream last night. He was riding a bicycle with some other people and littered on the street. When I called him out on it, he threw his bike down and ran. I'm sure there's a meaning in there somewhere ?‍♀️ ?