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

[Pleiades_06]

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.

It was rape. 17 is YOUNG and the power differential was huge. And prostitutes have rights too.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Pleiades_06

[Xanariel]

39 minutes ago, viii said:

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*. 

But it's not that Harry got suddenly cut out. He and Meghan were featured in 2018, the year of their marriage, alongside Eugenie and her husband. In 2017, the photos were herself and Philip (70th wedding anniversary) and the Cambridge kids. In 2016, it was the Queen with Charles. In 2015, it was Charles/Camilla/Queen/Philip/Cambridges. In 2014, it was her grandparents.  In 2013, it was her parents and the photo of herself, Charles, William and George.

Harry hasn't been included much at all in the last decade, just as his cousins weren't. The fact that he chooses to storm about not being included in pictures of the direct succession is therefore pretty eyebrow-raising. 

It seems pretty similar to the Sussexes infamously throwing a fit that they weren't included in the Commonwealth procession - after they had announced they were quitting. The fact that Sophie and Edward, the Queen's own son/daughter-in-law and working royals, weren't walking were immaterial - they were only pacified when Kate and William agreed to give up their places as well. 

It's not surprising Kate looked like even her decades-hanging patience had reached its limit with them in that ceremony. 

[Xanariel]

20 minutes ago, viii said:

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. 

?‍♀️

But the daft thing is, the security doesn't come with the title. 

Security for the royals is decided by the committee of RAVEC, which also looks at security for Cabinet officials and foreign VIPs in the UK. For the royals, security is assigned based on a combination of the amount of royal duties they carry out and the assessed security risk to the person in question. 

So for instance, the Wessexes and Anne get protection while they're carrying out duties - but not when they're off the clock. When Andrew stepped down from his duties, he lost his protection and had to rely on private security. 

Archie wouldn't get protection as a working royal for at least 18 years, even if the BRF had ever intended him to be one. The security team clearly did not think there was a serious enough threat against him to merit personal taxpayer-funded protection - reasonable when you think that he would have been living on a protected estate and his parents had their own officers present when the family was together. 

[EmCatlyn]

28 minutes ago, viii said:

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. 

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.    .....

To the bolded:  

My understanding is that the title has nothing to do with the security, despite what Meghan claimed to Oprah.  Harry’s cousins Beatrice and Eugenie are HRHs, but they don’t get security since 2000, I believe.  Someone upthread explained that security is given based on perceived vulnerability and whether you are a working royal.  A baby who is going to be in a royal property or with his parents (who had security) doesn’t need his own security.  So either Harry and Meghan were confused or they were using the security thing as an excuse because it sounds better than being upset because the Queen didn’t come up with a new Letters Patent for them.

About whether or not the Royal Family bears responsibility for the mistakes in Harry’s upbringing, education, young life, etc.  I agree that they do.  But I think discussing this issue on TV is inappropriate and unkind.  Unless Harry really hates Charles and wants to hurt him, there is no excuse (other than self-absorption) for publicizing the way he feels he was failed by his family and how dysfunctional they all are.  These are private matters that are best addressed privately in my opinion.

My own family had plenty of issues. At one point, I was in the position where I was invited to publish an autobiographical essay I had written for a class that exposed some of the dysfunction.  I chose not to (though at 17 the idea of being published was definitely tempting) because it would have hurt my mother and father and possibly made my mother (who was a respected professional) look “bad.”

While there are situations (when your family is publicly belittling you, when you have been abused, etc.) where bearing witness to your truth on international media might make sense, I don’t think Harry’s situation warranted it.  

[Xanariel]

19 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

While there are situations (when your family is publicly belittling you, when you have been abused, etc.) where bearing witness to your truth on international media might make sense, I don’t think Harry’s situation warranted it.  

In all fairness, from Meghan's discussion of her father and her claim of getting only one shot to spike a story, I do get the impression that she and Harry believe the royals have the power to halt any negative story in its tracks - and therefore, any stuff about them in the press is stuff Harry's family has sanctioned. 

The royals do brief against each other when things get bitter - Charles/Diana being an obvious example. They certainly don't have omnipotent control, or a lot of stuff about Charles would never have seen daylight. Staff and courtiers can also leak, and as Harry and Meghan appear to have had a pretty contentious relationship with their staff, reporters may have found a chink there. 

But overall, I think that the Sussexes just didn't help themselves a lot of the time. They were allegedly upset by the criticism they got from repeatedly taking private jets to holiday just after preaching about the planet for instance - as if the papers don't love nothing more than getting to rip into moralising hypocrites, as Leonardo D ably demonstrates. 

[nelliebelle1197]

17 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

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.”  
 

Honestly, why are you commenting on the Epstein situation when you are claiming you know nothing about it? The guy was a serial pedophile who molested and raped hundred of children and Andrew was close enough to him to be spotted with him in NYC AFTER Epstein was charged with child trafficking. Epstein was providing children the age of my 8th grader to adult men for sex.  He sought out poor girls with unstable home lives and basically exploited them and used them up until they were too old for him - you know, like juniors or seniors in high school. That comment and your response are repulsive and honestly, you need to stop and do some research on it before you speak about it in such a flip manner.

[EmCatlyn]

54 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Honestly, why are you commenting on the Epstein situation when you are claiming you know nothing about it? The guy was a serial pedophile who molested and raped hundred of children and Andrew was close enough to him to be spotted with him in NYC AFTER Epstein was charged with child trafficking. Epstein was providing children the age of my 8th grader to adult men for sex.  He sought out poor girls with unstable home lives and basically exploited them and used them up until they were too old for him - you know, like juniors or seniors in high school. That comment and your response are repulsive and honestly, you need to stop and do some research on it before you speak about it in such a flip manner.

I wasn’t commenting on the Epstein situation.  I was commenting on why the public outcry against Andrew might be less.  I see no reason to research Epstein and his crimes in order to be able to say that maybe people are reacting against Harry more than Andrew at the moment because (a) Harry is perceived as disloyal to the Queen (b) people had more invested in Harry than in Andrew, and (c) Andrew is currently at least being quiet.

Yes, I referred to Andrew’s friendship with a “questionable” man or something like that. But that was because I was focusing on how the public may look at Andrew.  Epstein wasn’t important to the point I was making.  I was focusing on the reaction to Andrew.  I didn’t even want to use the name Epstein, which is why I chose the understatement “very questionable friend” or something like that.

 

[tabitha2]

Epstein and Andrew should have their own thread. Nothing whatsoever to do with Harry  
 

I say  No one is losing any titles if they have not by now anyway. Andrew is laying low under no investigation and Harry can bloviate  all he wants from thousands of miles away but He can’t actually do shit to the family. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Xanariel said:

In all fairness, from Meghan's discussion of her father and her claim of getting only one shot to spike a story, I do get the impression that she and Harry believe the royals have the power to halt any negative story in its tracks - and therefore, any stuff about them in the press is stuff Harry's family has sanctioned. 

The royals do brief against each other when things get bitter - Charles/Diana being an obvious example. They certainly don't have omnipotent control, or a lot of stuff about Charles would never have seen daylight. Staff and courtiers can also leak, and as Harry and Meghan appear to have had a pretty contentious relationship with their staff, reporters may have found a chink there. 

But overall, I think that the Sussexes just didn't help themselves a lot of the time. They were allegedly upset by the criticism they got from repeatedly taking private jets to holiday just after preaching about the planet for instance - as if the papers don't love nothing more than getting to rip into moralising hypocrites, as Leonardo D ably demonstrates. 

Yes, I agree.  The impression I get is that Meghan at least thinks that if the Palace really valued them, the Palace would have stopped all stories that were critical of them.  As you say, it clearly doesn’t work that way. 

As for Charles’s and Diana’s dishing against each other and to some extent against the royals, that was not seen positively when it happened either.  While some people were sympathetic to Diana, others were embarrassed for her and the royal family.  And when Charles said something along the lines of, “my mother was distant,” he was harshly criticized.  Indeed, during that period there was a lot of noise about removing Charles from the succession.  FWIW, I was critical of their behavior just as I am critical of Harry’s now.

 

[nelliebelle1197]

17 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.

 

Virginia was not a 17 year old prostitute. She was a 17 year old internationally trafficked minor who had been sexually abused and manipulated by Maxwell and Epstein for years. 
 

This is honestly one of the most awful things someone has posted on here in a while. And you need to remember that Virginia is the only one who has come forward about Andrew. Andrew was close to Epstein and spent a lot of time with him. There is ample reason to suspect she was not the oldest or the only.

11 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Epstein and Andrew should have their own thread. Nothing whatsoever to do with Harry  
 

I say  No one is losing any titles if they have not by now anyway. Andrew is laying low under no investigation and Harry can bloviate  all he wants from thousands of miles away but He can’t actually do shit to the family. 

Thread drift is allowed on FJ and complaining about it is against the rules, just FYI.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

2 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Thread drift is allowed on FJ and complaining about it is against the rules, just FYI.

Since there’s a separate thread for Prince Andrew and Jeffery Epstein (and the discussion was entering dead parrot territory), I think it’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Since there’s a separate thread for Prince Andrew and Jeffery Epstein (and the discussion was entering dead parrot territory), I think it’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion. 

Dead parrot is a reaction people are free to use but it has no bearing on whether thread drift is allowed or not.  

The discussion was organic to the conversation here because people should absolutely be free to call out shitty comments minimizing the crimes of Andrew and Epstein.  Even if the posters who made the original comments can't see what's wrong with what they said doesn't mean people who know how harmful that kind of thing is for the victims should absolutely respond if they choose to.  

There are a lot of varied opinions on thread drift and if people want to discuss those then Community Discussion is the place to do that.  

[just_ordinary]

On a lighter note: do we think Santa Doriana will arrive by the end of the month or is maybe already with us? I know they said „in early? summer” and I know bump size, clothes and angles can be misleads but just judging those few picture I would be surprised if she doesn’t arrive any day now.

[viii]

I read she was due late June but that might have just been a rumour. With Harry and Meghan living in LA and by their own rules now, it'll be interesting to see how/if they announce her birth. They're not obligated to release any details so I'm curious to see how they'll do it. 

Personally, I think they'll wait a day or two after she's been born and then will make a post on their Archwell website. 

[nelliebelle1197]

8 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Dead parrot is a reaction people are free to use but it has no bearing on whether thread drift is allowed or not.  

The discussion was organic to the conversation here because people should absolutely be free to call out shitty comments minimizing the crimes of Andrew and Epstein.  Even if the posters who made the original comments can't see what's wrong with what they said doesn't mean people who know how harmful that kind of thing is for the victims should absolutely respond if they choose to.  

There are a lot of varied opinions on thread drift and if people want to discuss those then Community Discussion is the place to do that.  

Yep. Let’s remember that thread drift is a time honored tradition!

[Beermeet]

I am so happy people are seeing the light here now.  I lurked a bit after posting that I was seeing right through H&M from the engagement video on.  @tabitha2, you get it.  

The thing is, two things can exist at the same time. The BRF is a patriarchal hierarchy with a thousand years lineage behind it.  Honestly,  it's kinda impressive.  It's living history, like it or not.  They adapt slowly and have a largely respected place in the UK.  It's a part of the UK, the Queen does not rule it now like in the past.  Speaking of, two Queen Elizabeth's have been the head, not males.  History remembers QEI as much as her father.  That is not my country's problem,  we left and moved on.  Didn't go on Oprah lol

All that and how we may feel about it doesn't matter.  Harry and Meghan wanted to leave, they left. No one locked them in a tower despite what Neg said. They were and are free people.  Their initial manifesto was very confrontational.  Have you read it lately?   It's worth another go around for sure!   What they are doing is gross, it has little to do with the RF.  They wanted things they couldn't have and ran, while behaving ridiculously and are now in my country yapping and bitching about faux mental health resources ( seriously, where was the required mental heath disclaimer and hotlines for support?  FJ does this.) and making shit up.  Greed and delusion are driving H&M.  

Like, Harry isn't feeling some kinda way having being in active war?  Perhaps?His comments on that time in his life are disturbing.  The Nazi uniform, etc.

So, just Meg helped him realize he was trapped in his family.  Bitch, who isn't?  Stay or go but move on.  He has yet to have a teenager, oh boy.  You start understanding some stuff about your parents when it's you going through it.  Harry needs to grow TF up.  

They can both suck.  At least the RF is much more interesting/useful than Meghan Markle and Harry Windsor with a big dash of Oprah.   

Whew, that felt good.

[Xanariel]

One thing I do think Harry and Meghan were smart to do in their interview was basically completely erase any mention of their original statement when leaving the firm, because the entitlement was staggering, particularly when you realise they gave the BRF about a 10-minute warning before releasing it. It definitely shaped a lot of the narrative in the UK about their leaving, but didn't seem to register much with the US. 

Like, it's difficult to believe either of them ever actually held a job before, because...basically saying you're stepping back, but retain the right to stay part of the firm, pick and chose what assignments you do going forward, and indeed will be graciously 'collaborating' with your boss going forward? 

Claiming you intend to be financially independent and will be giving up the tiny portion of your income that is the Sovereign Grant - but omitting that you still expect Daddy to be contributing the millions to your account that he did before, despite the fact that your expenses are about to massively increase as you move overseas and you've got your own fortune of at least $20 million?

Saying that your biggest gripe is that you're not allowed to pursue commercial activities while other family members can, while ignoring the substantial difference between a non-taxpayer-funded royal having a job and someone still on the royal rota striking deals with firms like Quibi and Disney?

And - funniest of all to me - declaring that you're still an Internationally Protected Person, meaning that whatever government in the country you're staying in is obliged to fund your care, without checking this with either the UK or Canada - and then flouncing off to America when Canada says actually, we've paid for you so far but you can't continue to freeload if you're not on official business. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Xanariel

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 hours ago, Beermeet said:

  @tabitha2, you get it.  

More than once lately I've thought if @tabitha2 sent me an 'I told you so' PM I'd deserve it.  To her credit she didn't rub it in!

7 hours ago, Beermeet said:

That is not my country's problem,  we left and moved on.  Didn't go on Oprah

Now this is something I need to see...I so need to see the Mayflower crew on Oprah being asked how they feel about their parents and whether or not they love Jimmy Choo shoes.

8 hours ago, Beermeet said:

So, just Meg helped him realize he was trapped in his family.  Bitch, who isn't? 

Aint that the truth!  and you're right - wait until Archie and sis are older.  When my kids were babies I was sure I was going to be an amazing parent with few, minor mistakes, sure...but nothing like my parents.  And in some ways I absolutely am not, but the older I got the more I understood my parents and why they did certain things.  Even where I still didn't agree, at least I understood their intentions if that makes sense.  And sadly, I learned late in life I had some of the same blind spots.  Not intentional, but you can't see what you can't see and knowing how desperately I love my own kids despite my flaws as a parent and human being I realized maybe my parents did the best they could under their circumstances, too.

Damn it Harry making me feel bad for Prince Charles.  Although, tbh, I'd have no problem with him confronting his dad about feeling mistreated or such if he did it in private.  I think we owe our kids those conversations and answers where we have them, apologies where they're owed.  But if he'd done it in private none of us would be talking about it.  

8 hours ago, Beermeet said:

At least the RF is much more interesting/useful

Agree to disagree on the useful part and while I agree they are living history I still think the elitism of one family being superior by birth, and by birth order within that family is inexcusable in this day and age.  I do love the idea of having head of state separate than the political leader because in the US I think our office of President has too many roles to be effective at all of them....I think we should have separate head of state for representing the country.  I just think it should be someone elected or at least appointed with congressional confirmation rather than someone who happened to be born into the right family in the right order.  

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 hours ago, Xanariel said:

One thing I do think Harry and Meghan were smart to do in their interview was basically completely erase any mention of their original statement when leaving the firm, because the entitlement was staggering, particularly when you realise they gave the BRF about a 10-minute warning before releasing it. It definitely shaped a lot of the narrative in the UK about their leaving, but didn't seem to register much with the US. 

Like, it's difficult to believe either of them ever actually held a job before, because...basically saying you're stepping back, but retain the right to stay part of the firm, pick and chose what assignments you do going forward, and indeed will be graciously 'collaborating' with your boss going forward? 

Claiming you intend to be financially independent and will be giving up the tiny portion of your income that is the Sovereign Grant - but omitting that you still expect Daddy to be contributing the millions to your account that he did before, despite the fact that your expenses are about to massively increase as you move overseas and you've got your own fortune of at least $20 million?

Saying that your biggest gripe is that you're not allowed to pursue commercial activities while other family members can, while ignoring the substantial difference between a non-taxpayer-funded royal having a job and someone still on the royal rota striking deals with firms like Quibi and Disney?

And - funniest of all to me - declaring that you're still an Internationally Protected Person, meaning that whatever government in the country you're staying in is obliged to fund your care, without checking this with either the UK or Canada - and then flouncing off to America when Canada says actually, we've paid for you so far but you can't continue to freeload if you're not on official business. 

I do think the fact that his "job" was also being a member of his own immediate family muddies the waters.  I've never had a boss that would give a crap about me after I left the company, but my dad would have seen to my financial security and protection until the day he died...I do think it's unfair to compare being a working royal when it comes to Harry with a real job that ostensibly you get and keep on merit.

I don't remember personally, did they really only give them a few minutes before they made their announcement?  Because regardless of anything else blindsiding either your family or your boss is a bad idea, for different reasons.  I do think just out of basic decency there should have been discussions in private beforehand and if they couldn't come to resolution that worked for both sides then Harry and Meghan telling them what they were going to do.  If that was just hyperbole on your part that's fine, and I'm not being snarky.  But if it was really only minutes and not at least days/weeks then I see that as both strategically stupid as well as very unkind. 

Did they really expect the US and Canada to pay for security or is that speculation?  I know they expected the family to keep paying and I'm not sure that's unreasonable, but other countries?  Then again Canada still has some ties to the crown I don't pretend to understand, but certainly it would be crazy to expect it from the US.  I mean, historically we're not huge fans of paying for the monarchy when there's nothing in it for us.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I haven't seen this one yet, but will watch this weekend.  I have watched a bunch of the Behavior Panel videos and their body language stuff is not woo based like some, they take into account people having different baselines for various mannerisms, wording, and micro-reactions.  The one they did on Andrew's terrible interview was interesting (I just posted that in his thread) so thought I'd put this here.

 

[DalmatianCat]

26 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I haven't seen this one yet, but will watch this weekend.  I have watched a bunch of the Behavior Panel videos and their body language stuff is not woo based like some, they take into account people having different baselines for various mannerisms, wording, and micro-reactions.  The one they did on Andrew's terrible interview was interesting (I just posted that in his thread) so thought I'd put this here.

 

I love that channel...one of the guys reminds me of a British Chris Hemsworth ?

[viii]

9 hours ago, Beermeet said:

@tabitha2, you get it.  

 

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

More than once lately I've thought if @tabitha2 sent me an 'I told you so' PM I'd deserve it.  To her credit she didn't rub it in!

People also need to remember that @tabitha2 might have had some opinions that seem accurate but the way she portrayed them were still incredibly racist and sexist. 

[tabitha2]

That’s your opinion and you are welcome to it.you just need to remember  what you feel is not the final word:)  

 

Dtill waiting for examples of this racism and sexism. 

8 minutes ago, viii said:

 

People also need to remember that @tabitha2 might have had some opinions that seem accurate but the way she portrayed them were still incredibly racist and sexist. 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by tabitha2

[QuiverFullofBooks]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't remember personally, did they really only give them a few minutes before they made their announcement?  Because regardless of anything else blindsiding either your family or your boss is a bad idea, for different reasons.  I do think just out of basic decency there should have been discussions in private beforehand and if they couldn't come to resolution that worked for both sides then Harry and Meghan telling them what they were going to do.  If that was just hyperbole on your part that's fine, and I'm not being snarky.  But if it was really only minutes and not at least days/weeks then I see that as both strategically stupid as well as very unkind. 

They really did give them only a few minutes before the announcement. Talks had been going on for a while, and H&M felt that they were being put off (probably in the hope that they would change their minds). Then the media found out (likely because RBF staff told them) and gave Harry and Meghan little notice that they were going to print. So H&M claimed that forced them to release their statement, but of course they could have let the story run and continued negotiations.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

13 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

They really did give them only a few minutes before the announcement. Talks had been going on for a while, and H&M felt that they were being put off (probably in the hope that they would change their minds). Then the media found out (likely because RBF staff told them) and gave Harry and Meghan little notice that they were going to print. So H&M claimed that forced them to release their statement, but of course they could have let the story run and continued negotiations.

At least they were in negotiations so moments before wasn't the first time the family had heard of their plans.  Do you know how long the discussions were going on before the announcement?  Just curious if it were weeks, or days, or what.