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

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, viii said:

But how do we know that this is factual? How do we know any magazine is 100% trustworthy? 

I did not say that this or any other magazine is 100% trustworthy.  I said that this bit of information was factual.  It referred to an official statement from the palace which has been reported by other sources as an official statement from the palace.  

So I take it to be a fact that the palace made a statement saying that they were not going to contradict the BBC report.  

This is as opposed to their reporting that “a source close to the Queen” said such and such off the record. 

[viii]

2 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Because the official spokesperson at the palace issued the statement to certain members of the press. I mean, what more can she do other than go on Oprah and whine?

 

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I did not say that this or any other magazine is 100% trustworthy.  I said that this bit of information was factual.  It referred to an official statement from the palace which has been reported by other sources as an official statement from the palace.  

So I take it to be a fact that the palace made a statement saying that they were not going to contradict the BBC report.  

This is as opposed to their reporting that “a source close to the Queen” said such and such off the record. 

I’m not from the UK so I wasn’t sure of the credibility of the magazine. Thank you for explaining. 

I find it interesting they also denied that the Queen had a zoom call to meet the baby. It seems like such a weird thing to lie about but maybe H&M thought it made their version seem more legit. 

[nelliebelle1197]

37 minutes ago, viii said:

 

I’m not from the UK so I wasn’t sure of the credibility of the magazine. Thank you for explaining. 

I find it interesting they also denied that the Queen had a zoom call to meet the baby. It seems like such a weird thing to lie about but maybe H&M thought it made their version seem more legit. 

They are really digging deeper and deeper holes.  I wonder what the end game really is?

Honestly? I wonder if there is a folie à deux thingie going on here? 

[viii]

I don’t think Harry & Meghan even know the end goals. They’re treading water and getting tired fast. 

[TeaGrannie]

The story is in the Canadian press now too. Same report that the palace will correcting “misrepresentations”. https://torontosun.com/news/world/tossing-her-tiara-queen-draws-line-on-harry-and-meghans-mistruths
 

 

 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, viii said:

I find it interesting they also denied that the Queen had a zoom call to meet the baby. It seems like such a weird thing to lie about but maybe H&M thought it made their version seem more legit. 

I get the feeling that if they think a story sounds good, they go with it.  Then they get upset if it is questioned or contradicted or (gasp) disproven.  

What I’m curious about is to what extent they are deliberately misrepresenting things.  Meghan is an actress, but could Harry be convincing if he knew he was giving false information?  Is he uncomfortable about some of the more obvious “mistruths”? 

When a “mistruth” is unnecessary, what is the rationale behind it?  Some things they obviously say for effect, to make themselves more interesting (like saying that they were married privately before the official wedding) or to make themselves more sympathetic (“nobody listened to us”).  But where does the claim that the Queen has “met” the baby through Skype (or Zoom, or whatever) come in?  I don’t think it adds to the credibility of their claim that the Queen was consulted about the name.  I think they just thought it made a nice story that the press would love.

3 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

They are really digging deeper and deeper holes.  I wonder what the end game really is?

Honestly? I wonder if there is a folie à deux thingie going on here? 

Yes!  I almost said that (about folie à deux) in my post above.

[Xanariel]

8 hours ago, viii said:

 

I’m not from the UK so I wasn’t sure of the credibility of the magazine. Thank you for explaining. 

I find it interesting they also denied that the Queen had a zoom call to meet the baby. It seems like such a weird thing to lie about but maybe H&M thought it made their version seem more legit. 

If it helps, this is a very quick and vague run-down of papers that tend to crop up in royal gossip:

The BBC and The Times (the paper that broke the bullying scandal) are generally reliable in that their sources are all lined up, and they're so high-profile that if the Palace disagrees with what they're saying, they'll generally send out the spokesperson to deny it. If they stay silent or issue a vague "no comment", that's generally pretty telling. 

The Daily Telegraph - generally well-regarded in its reporting, but strongly conservative in its political leanings and general outlook, so very unlikely to ever like the new Harry and his way of doing things. 

The Daily Mail is a right-wing tabloid that isn't very fond of Meghan (and that she's successfully sued) which is why it's always worth being aware of the slant and possible inaccuracies to their stories. That being said, they're a popular newspaper with some well-connected journalists that gets royal scoops more often than you'd think, though sometimes the details are fuzzy - e.g. they accurately reported Harry had yelled at Angela Kelly over a tiara for Meghan, but initially suggested it was about her wanting a tiara with emeralds rather than her wanting to take it out for a hair trial. 

The Guardian is a generally respected paper that is firmly left-wing and has called for a Republic since about 2000. It generally criticises the monarchy, but has shown sympathy to Harry and Meghan, especially regarding the racism she's faced. Doesn't tend to break gossip like the Cambridge/Sussex feud, but more legal and financial matters of the BRF. 

The Sun is another tabloid - very well-known and occasionally gets some bigger royal journalists writing articles, but overall take with a hefty pinch of salt. Infamous for its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster thirty-odd years ago, and has not massively improved since then. 

The Daily Star/Express/Mirror - lots of royal stories, but take with all the salt. The Palace will not generally bother to even acknowledge the stories. Along with the Daily Mail and others, these tabloids were singled out by the Sussexes as papers they would no longer be cooperating with, which did not have much of an impact on their reporting. 

I wonder if, as the Sussexes have been so keen on drawing a line between "mean old BRF" and "cuddly Queen who we love so much" that they would have seen any embellishments on the relationship as flattering to her - she's not like the rest of them, she's a cool granny who's close to the great-grandkids - without registering how badly the whole thing was going down with her. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Xanariel

[WiseGirl]

5 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

“mistruths”? 

Maybe they are taking a page from 45? If you repeat the lie often enough certain people will think it's the truth.

This is like reading about JRod. Hear me out. Their finances are as mysterious, what is their end game, alienating family (in Rod's case it is his family too), making new friends and leaving the old ones behind...okay maybe stretching some things there but to me it is like the Rods in that it is like a car crash and I cannot look away. I'm always wondering wtf are they doing now?

Carry on.

[Giraffe]

Thanks @Xanariel. I had no clue about the various papers either so your rundown on them was quite helpful. 

[viii]

@Xanariel Wow - a massive thank you for the thorough run down on the British media. I appreciate it, and you! 

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

Maybe they are taking a page from 45? If you repeat the lie often enough certain people will think it's the truth.

This is like reading about JRod. Hear me out. Their finances are as mysterious, what is their end game, alienating family (in Rod's case it is his family too), making new friends and leaving the old ones behind...okay maybe stretching some things there but to me it is like the Rods in that it is like a car crash and I cannot look away. I'm always wondering wtf are they doing now?

Carry on.. 

I got “mistruths” from one of the articles reporting on the royals.  I think “alternative facts” (as proposed by Kellyanne Conway re 45) would be a little kinder, but it comes to the same thing.  

There is often a thin line between selectively emphasizing some aspects of the truth and embroidering on that truth.  Harry and Meghan seem to be prone to crossing that thin line.  The effect on me is increase my doubts about their whole narrative, not just the parts that are obviously embroidered.

I suppose that is not the effect on everyone.??‍♀️  I just came across a survey report that Meghan is the “most respected royal” with Gen Z.  ?

(I don’t know much about JRod, but it really sounds like a similar dynamic.)

 

[adidas]

59 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I got “mistruths” from one of the articles reporting on the royals.  I think “alternative facts” (as proposed by Kellyanne Conway re 45) would be a little kinder, but it comes to the same thing.  

There is often a thin line between selectively emphasizing some aspects of the truth and embroidering on that truth.  Harry and Meghan seem to be prone to crossing that thin line.  The effect on me is increase my doubts about their whole narrative, not just the parts that are obviously embroidered.

I suppose that is not the effect on everyone.??‍♀️  I just came across a survey report that Meghan is the “most respected royal” with Gen Z.  ?

(I don’t know much about JRod, but it really sounds like a similar dynamic.)

 

My favourite is ‘recollections may vary’ ?

[EmCatlyn]

1 minute ago, adidas said:

My favourite is ‘recollections may vary’ ?

Mine too! And it is perfect because it implicitly rejects a narrative without calling the people promoting the narrative “liars.”  I will say that people often do remember things differently, especially when the memory is painful.

The thing about the Sussexes is that some of the “recollections” seem different from what the world has observed.  For instance, Harry’s comment about not being able to go bike riding.  (Several pictures of him and his parents riding bikes on more than one occasion challenge that account.)

Maybe Harry feels more free to go on a bike ride in California with his security team and Archie than he felt on the Sandringham estate with whatever security there was there.  That is “his truth” — but there are facts that suggest that “truth” may be highly selective.

Yes, “recollections may vary.”

[Xanariel]

9 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

Maybe they are taking a page from 45? If you repeat the lie often enough certain people will think it's the truth.

This is like reading about JRod. Hear me out. Their finances are as mysterious, what is their end game, alienating family (in Rod's case it is his family too), making new friends and leaving the old ones behind...okay maybe stretching some things there but to me it is like the Rods in that it is like a car crash and I cannot look away. I'm always wondering wtf are they doing now?

Carry on.

The strand thing is, it didn't really seem like the Sussexes were flat-out lying before. Their reactions seem to suggest a mixture of genuine grievances, some exaggeration and occasional misinterpretation, but there was generally a foundation. 

Like, while suggesting Archie was denied a title based on his race doesn't really hold up, one set of Charles' grandchildren have titles and one set doesn't, and you can understand there being some affront even if they weren't singled out. 

Or it seems likely that Meghan would have been told to hand in her passport and driving for safe-keeping and you can imagine that causing some alarm, even if she continued to drive and jet out of the UK after her marriage rather than the caged princess she portrayed herself as. 

They certainly didn't seem to expect the Queen's staff to shoot this one down. I wonder if this straw broke the camel's back because the Queen felt she'd been either railroaded or misled - depending how the Sussexes' claimed permission came about - or if it was more that the Palace saw this as a straightforward fact that could be denied, rather than a situation that could be taken in more than one way ("recollections may vary). 

[MamaJunebug]

On 6/14/2021 at 10:35 PM, TeaGrannie said:

The story is in the Canadian press now too. Same report that the palace will correcting “misrepresentations”. https://torontosun.com/news/world/tossing-her-tiara-queen-draws-line-on-harry-and-meghans-mistruths
 

 

"....more than a little terrified of being demoted and losing their titles." They oughta be!  

Also love the idea of the queen tossing her tiara, and no doubt her omnipresent brooch.  A little Vaseline to the royal countenance and she'd be reaching for Meghan's ponytail.  Or Harry's ear.

With all the troubles in the world, it's a weird kind of relief to munch the popcorn while watching the antics of overpaid, overpampered people fuss at each other.  Imagining these characters as a middle-class USA feuding family is also fun (for me).  My only problem is finding the counterparts for the various media involved.  I guess .... friends of the family, most likely with something to gain depending on how the drama resolves.

17 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

This is like reading about JRod. Hear me out. Their finances are as mysterious, what is their end game, alienating family (in Rod's case it is his family too), making new friends and leaving the old ones behind...okay maybe stretching some things there but to me it is like the Rods in that it is like a car crash and I cannot look away. I'm always wondering wtf are they doing now?

The Rods! Right! They are the middle-class version of H&M in the USA!  They passively insult his mother by ignoring her birthday calls and posts, just for starters.  And the equivalent of the British media for the Rods are the social media and snark sites.  Pretty slick.  Thank you for the idea!

[WiseGirl]

Nothing to do with H&M but it just caught my eye as being on the other end if the spectrum of their royal entitlement whining.

https://people.com/royals/netherlands-future-queen-princess-catharina-amalia-rejects-2-million-annual-allowance/

A royal rejecting an allowance.  Take a cue H&M an 18 year old is showing you how to be a mature royal who has no duties with class.

Edited June 16, 2021 by WiseGirl
Spelling

[tabitha2]

I bet There are 8 year old Royals with more discretion and maturity than these two whack a moles.  

[ADoyle90815]

 

[viii]

6 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

Nothing to do with H&M but it just caught my eye as being on the other end if the spectrum of their royal entitlement whining.

https://people.com/royals/netherlands-future-queen-princess-catharina-amalia-rejects-2-million-annual-allowance/

A royal rejecting an allowance.  Take a cue H&M an 18 year old is showing you how to be a mature royal who has no duties with class.

I had read that article earlier and was super impressed. Her parents have (seemingly) done a good job of raising her and she will make an excellent Queen someday. 

[tabitha2]

The next generation is going to be almost all  Queens in Europe. They all seem to be well trained, intelligent  and very well rounded young ladies.  

[Pleiades_06]

31 minutes ago, viii said:

I had read that article earlier and was super impressed. Her parents have (seemingly) done a good job of raising her and she will make an excellent Queen someday. 

I agree, but I also think the Dutch are more fed up with their royals. That monarchy is trying to stay relevant and cut back in order not lose their position.

[FrumperedCat]

I think though that generally the monarchy even in the UK are relaxing more with regards to pursuits outside the full time Royal commitment. Harry and William both had roles outside their duties where possible. Harry in the army, until that got leaked, and William with the air ambulance. Also, the ambassador roles in the Royal family have evolved. More focus on mental health and other ethical commitments. Harry and Meghan were also reflective of that however they shouldn't be viewed as exceptional because of that given that other family members also saught to help others. 

Certainly not on the scale of rejecting the Royal allowance, however William did at least contribute his air ambulance wages to charity. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, FrumperedCat said:

I think though that generally the monarchy even in the UK are relaxing more with regards to pursuits outside the full time Royal commitment. Harry and William both had roles outside their duties where possible. Harry in the army, until that got leaked, and William with the air ambulance. Also, the ambassador roles in the Royal family have evolved. More focus on mental health and other ethical commitments. Harry and Meghan were also reflective of that however they shouldn't be viewed as exceptional because of that given that other family members also saught to help others. 

Certainly not on the scale of rejecting the Royal allowance, however William did at least contribute his air ambulance wages to charity. 

I find a lot of what Harry and Meghan are doing is more in keeping with “Hollywood Celebrity” than “Royalty” and that this is the real issue.  Hollywood Celebrities are always doing “charity” things that build up their image as much as they help the charity.  

I don’t pretend to know what exactly motivated them to move to California (though I suspect that Harry, at least, was not planning to move to the US initially).  But  I think that a lot of it was that they wanted to shine on their own and decide what to do or say for themselves instead of part of an institution which put the institution (the Crown) ahead of the image of individual members of the family. (William getting more attention not because of his individual merits but because he will be king.)

When they volunteer at a soup kitchen for an afternoon now, Harry and Meghan get a lot of applause for themselves instead of being seen as “just doing the right thing,” as royals.

 

[tabitha2]

Most senior Royal have their own cause or causes they are passionate about or at least deeply invested for personal reasons. Most of these are not ever going to end up on the font page or even get a headline the but the Royal has been involved for years and plenty of good is still being done behind the scenes nevertheless. 
 

They aren’t jumping on the next hot topic talking point like the Sussex couple does. 

[just_ordinary]

Damn. 48h concentrating on my career and I come back to this. 
I will say, spokespeople pushing against misrepresented private conversations is BIG. This means either the conversations are not private anymore or HMTQ has taken a real interest, reads the papers/internet or wants reports so she can decide when to react or not. 
I said before, I can absolutely see how H&M could feel they “asked” for permission, while the Queen felt she was “informed”. Running around and screaming only your POV is True has bitten them in the back now. They are jumping the gun a lot. Just remember there multiple versions of their exist statement. They should have learned from that. H&Ms problem is that they are so wrapped up in their victim narrative that they have absolutely no regard for the feelings and perspective of others. Adding the massive chip on their shoulder about negative press.
I will say though, I find the topic of the naming of their daughter not exactly the right topic to start pushing back. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by just_ordinary