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

[viii]

15 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I also believe that she and Philip deserve a break on the type of parents they were

I think they also did a lot of things other noble families did when it came to parenting. They weren't a hands-on generation like it is today. 

[tabitha2]

Plus the Old family films show E&P were far from remote hands off figures. They did the best they could and made time whenever they could. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

Why? Maybe the term or rather how I translate it into my language mean something different from where you are from? Because from my perspective he is not wrong to claim it generally. His grandparents generation is highly influenced by WWII, the rationing, a very formal (often enough called emotionally neglected and physically abusive) upbringing. There is a reason we have the term „black education” as a keyword in the educational sciences in our discourse. Adding their personal traumas in terms of loosing parents, extreme pressure and being basically homeless (more in an emotional way but honestly he was completely dependent on the well meaning of distant relatives). This type of distant children-parent relationship drip down and while every generation does things differently, some effects can still be seen today. 
But if your definition means something else, that would be an interesting point. 
I am sure his upbringing wasn’t rosy. Fighting, distant parents, very much caught up in their own tragedies and sticking out like a sore thumb thanks to you being royal. And then the whole trauma around his mother’s death. I get it. And the fact that he has been on and off therapy for years now, says it all. Reflecting on your own upbringing and deciding to do things differently is done by millions of parents all the time. And most accomplish to maintain a respectful and loving relationship with their families while doing so.
But why, for the live of god, is he still bashing on about it? Again. And again. And getting more and more personal each time. It stated with the press, went to the grey suits, than the BRF and an hidden racist in their midst and now the scope is on the late DoE and his father. That has nothing to do with unresolved trauma it’s payback and the realisation that is the only thing people want to hear from him. 
A look at the program showed me lots of crying faces. Sorry, but if it’s a “people breaking down about their break down” it really not cool. Somewhat exaggerated it’s exactly why people say Americans are overly theatrical and full of drama. Opening up about mental health is important and there great programs but that’s for sure not my cup of tea. It plain voyeurism. 

I believe the BRF have suffered personal trauma and tragedy throughout the generations, as most families have.  And as kids need different kind of parenting depending on their needs within a family children can experience different levels of trauma from the same circumstances.

But the phrase "generational trauma" is often used to explain how severe and pervasive trauma to families in certain circumstances can affect future generations. 

from this article:  https://www.ensembletherapy.com/blog/what-is-generational-trauma

Quote

When we think about history, there are many groups that come to mind that have been affected by generational trauma such as descendants of United States enslavement, Native Americans, refugees, those that have experienced substance misuse across generations, those who have survived childhood abuse or neglect, and family members of Holocaust survivors, just to name a few. 

Yes, it can be used to discuss how severe trauma within a family but that's not how I've generally heard it used.  I mean technically being a member of the BRF is it's own subgroup of people and there could be generational trauma, but as many in those previous generations were also responsible for inflicting generational trauma on millions upon millions with colonialization and imperialism it's extremely tone deaf if he were trying to equate the two. 

Let's say the BRF is full of generational trauma, it would be a struggle for kids born into it,  But as three of those people Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm, and King George led countries in WWI which caused massive generational trauma to untold millions it would be tone deaf to use the term.  

Anyway - there are schools of thought on how generational trauma affects genetic expression in DNA it's a fairly important topic and not one that should be co-opted by a guy who had some genuine trauma in an otherwise pretty cush life.

Not to downplay bad parenting in the BRF going back through the ages, but that's hardly exclusive to them and most people deal with family problems passed down through the generations without financial security or status which don't negate trauma but can make it easier to bear and opportunities to mitigate it on some levels most can never imagine.

ETA sorry - cross posted with @louisa05

Edited May 18, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[EmCatlyn]

12 hours ago, adidas said:

So Harry says that the royal family is suffering from genetic pain from bad parenting. Way to throw his very newly dead Grandfather under the bus. 

Nobody is saying that the royals are perfect, but dude. Read the room. 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/prince-harry-says-royals-are-in-cycle-of-genetic-pain-passing-on-bad-parenting-habits/ar-BB1gHT5v

Harry is really pretty clueless.  The suggestion that Charles suffered from bad parenting is not new — Charles himself, notoriously whined about his mother having been “distant” and his father too stern (or something like that) and most biographers agree that Charles suffered from being sent to Gordonstoun (or however the school is spelt) and so forth.

BUT in my opinion, Diana did not have the best upbringing either.  She and her brother suffered a lot when their parents divorced — she certainly ended up needy and insecure. Whatever “cycle” Harry is talking about is as much an issue in aristocratic and upper-middle class circles as with royalty.

Parenthetically, I have always thought that Diana’s family really failed her when Charles was courting her and proposed.  They knew what she was getting into, even if she didn’t.  It is up to the parents and older siblings of a 19-year-old contemplating marriage to try to make her realize that this is not a fairy tale.  I am not making excuses for Charles and the Royal Family, but typically it is up to the family of the bride to “protect” the bride.

That Harry seems to blame everything on the royal family’s problems and none on the problems in his mother’s family and her lack of preparation for her marriage is very sad.  

It is also sad that he needs to keep “throwing shade” on the family that has loved and protected him all these years.  (While it is true that he and William went through a lot, I rather got the feeling that their feelings and needs got a lot more attention than Charles himself did when he was growing up.)  Even if everything he blames them for is justified, they are his family. 

If they were throwing shade on him, or criticizing them publicly, I’d see it as self-defense.  But no one in the family is saying anything bad about them. Honestly, Harry is coming across as spoiled and disloyal.

 

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The parent that indulges and spoils you, the one whose world revolves around you can be the one who made you feel the most loved as a kid and when you lose them it can leave a void that's impossible to fill.  Or something...projecting my own issues onto Harry is totally normal  

Seriously though, having kids makes a lot of people reevaluate their own upbringing and that's great when people consciously decide what they want to pass on to their kids, and what they want to spare them.  Losing a grandparent and seeing your parent's grief can also bring up a lot of family stuff so it's not weird that he's thinking about this stuff, but damn the way he's presenting it is so off-putting.

Self-reflection is great, whining to the press about it is not.  I mean it's not like you need to be a member of the BRF to have generations of unhealthy family dynamics, sadly it's pretty damn common.

Also someone needs to teach him the definition of the word genetic so he can stop using it wrong.

 

Yes!  Honestly, you’d think he is the only kid whose parents got divorced, whose mother died, whose grandparents were “distant,” etc.

I know a woman who lost her father when she was 9, after her parents had gone through a very nasty divorce.  She was her father’s favorite and always had friction with her mother. Her grandparents were dysfunctional, etc.  When I met her she was about the age Harry is now.  She did not go around talking about her painful childhood, she had made peace with her mother, and it was only when I knew her well that I learned about her father’s death and how it impacted her.  

Harry must be hurting his father, brother and grandmother very much.  It really isn’t all about him.

[viii]

11 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Yes!  Honestly, you’d think he is the only kid whose parents got divorced, whose mother died, whose grandparents were “distant,” etc.

I know a woman who lost her father when she was 9, after her parents had gone through a very nasty divorce.  She was her father’s favorite and always had friction with her mother. Her grandparents were dysfunctional, etc.  When I met her she was about the age Harry is now.  She did not go around talking about her painful childhood, she had made peace with her mother, and it was only when I knew her well that I learned about her father’s death and how it impacted her.  

Harry must be hurting his father, brother and grandmother very much.  It really isn’t all about him.

I feel like Harry has swallowed his emotions for years and now that he has opened that faucet, he can't control the flow and it's all just spilling out. I think he's going to look back on the interviews he's done here in 5-10 years and just cringe. 

It's not all about him, but I also have limited sympathy when it comes to the pain of his family members. Harry is easy to make a target right now because he is putting himself in the spotlight the most, but that doesn't mean the other parties are blameless. Elizabeth fucked so much up when it came to Diana, and that's certainly had a ramification on Harry. Charles and William have both proven to be unsupportive in his relationship to Meghan. That is extremely hurtful and it puts Harry in a hard place - does he side with his wife or does he side with his family? He has truly embraced the 'leave and cleave' line JB/M love to spout - he has forsaken his family for his wife and I think he made the right choice. 

If everything they have said regarding the racism and the mental health is true, then Harry was right to stand by his wife. Their marriage would have never survived otherwise. 

[tabitha2]

@louisa05 William And Harry were sent to board unusually young because of the home circumstances and Edwards James, Viscount Severn turned 13 in December and will have to go to different school next year anyway  Eton and I guess most of the other old elite public schools start at 13 so it’s too soon to say Boarding schools are not happening. I still think George will go in time.  

[viii]

I'm not convinced George will go. I just have a hard time seeing Kate letting it happen. She seems far more maternal than Diana or Elizabeth were. It's easy to say that it's not up to her, since he doesn't belong to her but to the crown, but I still think she will have more say in his upbringing than royal mothers in the past. 

[EmCatlyn]

11 minutes ago, viii said:

I feel like Harry has swallowed his emotions for years and now that he has opened that faucet, he can't control the flow and it's all just spilling out. I think he's going to look back on the interviews he's done here in 5-10 years and just cringe. 

It's not all about him, but I also have limited sympathy when it comes to the pain of his family members. Harry is easy to make a target right now because he is putting himself in the spotlight the most, but that doesn't mean the other parties are blameless. Elizabeth fucked so much up when it came to Diana, and that's certainly had a ramification on Harry. Charles and William have both proven to be unsupportive in his relationship to Meghan. That is extremely hurtful and it puts Harry in a hard place - does he side with his wife or does he side with his family? He has truly embraced the 'leave and cleave' line JB/M love to spout - he has forsaken his family for his wife and I think he made the right choice. 

If everything they have said regarding the racism and the mental health is true, then Harry was right to stand by his wife. Their marriage would have never survived otherwise. 

As I said in another post, I am not trying to excuse the Royal Family.  I just think that Harry is not behaving well  as a family member.

It is possible to stand by your wife without throwing you father under the bus. 

[viii]

1 minute ago, EmCatlyn said:

As I said in another post, I am not trying to excuse the Royal Family.  I just think that Harry is not behaving well  as a family member.

It is possible to stand by your wife without throwing you father under the bus. 

That's true, but it's a bit more difficult when it's being played out on a public stage. Charles himself has not personally commented on Harry, but there's a lot of chatter out there that Charles/the Firm are responsible for a lot of the negative stories about Harry and Meghan. 

If I was fighting with my dad and he was having people go on social media blasting horrible stories about me and I knew it was him doing it through other people, I'd probably call him out on it as well. 

[louisa05]

8 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

@louisa05 William And Harry were sent to board unusually young because of the home circumstances and Edwards James, Viscount Severn turned 13 in December and will have to go to different school next year anyway  Eton and I guess most of the other old elite public schools start at 13 so it’s too soon to say Boarding schools are not happening. I still think George will go in time.  

As of now, neither of Edward’s kids board. And Lady Louise is 17. Day schools do exist. 
 

As for William’s kids, their current school goes to age 13. And there are many day schools for older students in London. It isn’t a given that their kids  will board.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

6 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

As of now, neither of Edward’s kids board. And Lady Louise is 17. Day schools do exist. 
 

As for William’s kids, their current school goes to age 13. And there are many day schools for older students in London. It isn’t a given that their kids  will board.

 

Fwiw I hope they don't.  Not because royals, but I just believe kids should live with their families unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.  

[tabitha2]

14 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

As of now, neither of Edward’s kids board. And Lady Louise is 17. Day schools do exist. 
 

As for William’s kids, their current school goes to age 13. And there are many day schools for older students in London. It isn’t a given that their kids  will board.

 

True. Nothing in this world is a given.Hell Their may not even even be a monarchy when George turns 13. But as it’s said William Enjoyed Eton and Catherine mostly enjoyed her boarding days plus Most of George’s upperclass peers and friends will go on to one of the public schools to at least partially board I still think it’s more likely than not. St.Thomas Battersea is considered  a feeding school for boys entering Eton so there’s that 
 

For Charlotte I’d say St Mary’s Ascot girls school where Lady Louise is a day student plus numerous other relatives and Royals have gone is highly likely. Or Marlborough where her mom went. 
 

 

[viii]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Fwiw I hope they don't.  Not because royals, but I just believe kids should live with their families unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.  

Where I live, there’s a good chunk of kids who leave home around 13-15 to go play competitive sports. I always wonder if they find it worth it. I wouldn’t have liked it as a teenager. 

[louisa05]

6 minutes ago, viii said:

Where I live, there’s a good chunk of kids who leave home around 13-15 to go play competitive sports. I always wonder if they find it worth it. I wouldn’t have liked it as a teenager. 

One of the high schools I sub at is the host school for junior hockey league teams affiliated with the USHL. Kids come from all over the country and occasionally there’s one from outside the U S as well. They’re mostly entitled rich kids as it’s extremely expensive. They live with host families that have almost no guardian responsibilities for them. School problems are taken to the school liaison for the team.  The teachers can’t stand it and it has created a gender imbalance in their school—it’s a pretty small school and adding 50-60 extra boys changed the dynamics. Plus those boys count in their numbers for sports classification but don’t play school sports so it has bumped them up a class without the actual number of athletes to be competitive. 

[DalmatianCat]

17 minutes ago, viii said:

Where I live, there’s a good chunk of kids who leave home around 13-15 to go play competitive sports. I always wonder if they find it worth it. I wouldn’t have liked it as a teenager. 

I had a very close friend who was in the performing arts field and she told me once that growing up she’d wished she could go to a performing arts boarding school that she’d seen in a tv show. She wasn’t sure such a school actually existed, but she loved the idea. Unfortunately, as a lower/middle class teen living in a small town in the south in the late 80s/early 90s she had no idea how to go  about getting information. She couldn’t Google it, couldn’t find anything in the phone book, and didn’t have any school counselors who knew how to help her find more information.

(This isn’t really related to Meghan and Harry, but the boarding school discussion made me remember it.)

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, viii said:

That's true, but it's a bit more difficult when it's being played out on a public stage. Charles himself has not personally commented on Harry, but there's a lot of chatter out there that Charles/the Firm are responsible for a lot of the negative stories about Harry and Meghan. 

If I was fighting with my dad and he was having people go on social media blasting horrible stories about me and I knew it was him doing it through other people, I'd probably call him out on it as well. 

I haven’t seen many “horrible” stories about Meghan and Harry.  At least, not any more than “horrible” stories about “the Firm.”  The press is full of garbage.  Further, a lot of “the chatter out there,” is unreliable.

Harry and Meghan have complained that the Palace didn’t intervene to “protect” Meghan from the brutal press.  And they hinted that some stories that misrepresent what happened have come out with the Palace’s sanction.  But if they gave any proof, I missed it.

Even if the Palace is behind attacks on them,  Harry was not addressing these attacks when he criticized his father and grandmother for their bad parenting.  This is not the same as setting the record straight about a rumor or complaining that Archie wasn’t made a prince.  This is passing judgment publicly on his family.  That, in my opinion, is not right.

Don’t get me wrong.  I do understand that Harry feels he has not been well-treated and is now “finding a voice” for the first time.  It still is disloyal and selfish in my view.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, EmCatlyn said:

It still is disloyal and selfish in my view.

Would you feel the same if a Duggar kid went public with criticism of JB and Michelle?

I am not implying that it's the same at all, just curious if you think it's always wrong to speak out publicly against family.

[EmCatlyn]

20 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Would you feel the same if a Duggar kid went public with criticism of JB and Michelle?

I am not implying that it's the same at all, just curious if you think it's always wrong to speak out publicly against family.

 I would think it was disloyal if a Duggar kid did it unless it was in self-defense. Whether it would be “selfish” would also depend on the circumstances.  

 So for example if JB and Michelle were publicly calling Jill a traitor and a sinful child, I wouldn’t blame her for setting the record straight; but if she just went on TV and started spewing criticism of her parents in order to get attention and promote a book, I would say she was being disloyal and selfish.  

Thera are ways we can express disagreement with our parents without condemning them during a TV interview. ?  

As far as Harry goes, I think he is not thinking very clearly.  If he really loves his grandmother, would he be saying things that are bound to hurt her if he realized how it might make her feel?  I don’t know.??‍♀️
 

[tabitha2]

JB and Michelle can speak back to defend themselves if they really wanted to.The Royals  can’t. 

 

It’s not criticizing itself but the way this couple are low down almost spiteful about it. Harry and Meghan have blatantly lied, told half truths, contradicted themselves numerous times. Harry took a private conversation and told Gayle king about it. He accuses them of being miserable uncaring trapped racists because he can and they can’t  to share their side or defend themselves. 

It’s dirty pool. 

 

[viii]

I just cannot agree with you. It’s not disloyal to call out toxic people to me. 

Also, the royals could speak out if they wanted to. 

And for the record, we don’t know that Harry knew Gayle would share their private conversation. I think it’s safe to assume he had a wager, but we can’t determine that he told her a private conversation with the hopes she would go public with it. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by viii

[HerNameIsBuffy]

11 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

 I would think it was disloyal if a Duggar kid did it unless it was in self-defense. Whether it would be “selfish” would also depend on the circumstances.  

 So for example if JB and Michelle were publicly calling Jill a traitor and a sinful child, I wouldn’t blame her for setting the record straight; but if she just went on TV and started spewing criticism of her parents in order to get attention and promote a book, I would say she was being disloyal and selfish.  

Thera are ways we can express disagreement with our parents without condemning them during a TV interview. ?  

As far as Harry goes, I think he is not thinking very clearly.  If he really loves his grandmother, would he be saying things that are bound to hurt her if he realized how it might make her feel?  I don’t know.??‍♀️
 

I think it's interesting where we all draw the line on this.  For me keeping stuff inhouse or taking it public comes down to whether it's about privacy or secrets.

I agree if you're spewing about your family for press or to sell a book that's terrible.  If, however, you had a famous family with minor children still living at home and you knew they were being abused or in danger then by all means get booked on every talk show you can.  

That is not the situation with Harry, and I only used the Duggars as a jump off point and am not implying any of the kids are hiding known abuse.  

In Harry's case.... Idk if he thinks everyone else has idyllic childhoods where our parents are always present and our emotional needs consistently met?  Take the fancy royal stuff out and he's describing some pretty freaking normal family dynamics.  

My take on the BRF as a family is they are probably a bunch of people who love each other and parented as best they could with the tools they had.  And were as hampered or helped by their own upbringings as literally everyone else ever.  

In the Duggar's case if every one of those kids except Josh wanted to post every day how damaged their family is because of JB/M not getting Josh help as a kid then I think they should.  No one owes loyalty at the expense of their own abuse or that of others.

33 minutes ago, viii said:

And for the record, we don’t know that Harry knew Gayle would share their private conversation. I think it’s safe to assume he had a wager, but we can’t determine that he told her a private conversation with the hopes she would go public with it. 

It's not like he told a friend where there should be an expectation of confidentiality.  He told a member of the media stuff about his family who happens to be one of the most famous families on the planet.  If for some reason he expected it to be off the record he should have locked that up legally....but if they aren't close why would he talk to her about this anyway?

 

[DalmatianCat]

34 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

In Harry's case.... Idk if he thinks everyone else has idyllic childhoods where our parents are always present and our emotional needs consistently met?  Take the fancy royal stuff out and he's describing some pretty freaking normal family dynamics.  

Now that you say it...maybe that is what he’s thinking???? Everyone else had perfect parents but him? But if he does...he’s even more naive than I thought.

37 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

It's not like he told a friend where there should be an expectation of confidentiality.  He told a member of the media stuff about his family who happens to be one of the most famous families on the planet.  If for some reason he expected it to be off the record he should have locked that up legally....but if they aren't close why would he talk to her about this anyway?

For having so many issues with the press you’d think he’d be more cautious/paranoid. But with covid it’s not like Harry had much time after moving to develop very many new friendships or relationships so he might have been stuck trying to bond with whatever member of the media called him.

This goes for both Harry and Meghan...I could  understand their choices better if they were in their 20s...but for being 40 and 36  and being in the public eye for decades (Harry, at least) you think they would at least know to hire a better PR person. Do they have one???

[Coconut Flan]

Gayle King couldn't wait to blab on TV about Meghan's shower.  Why would anyone think she'd keep info from Harry to herself?

For people claiming to want privacy, they're going about it backwards.

For people who shamed her father for going to the press, they certainly want to tell their side to the world. 

[EmCatlyn]

53 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

[snipped]
I think it's interesting where we all draw the line on this.  For me keeping stuff inhouse or taking it public comes down to whether it's about privacy or secrets.
I agree if you're spewing about your family for press or to sell a book that's terrible.  If, however, you had a famous family with minor children still living at home and you knew they were being abused or in danger then by all means get booked on every talk show you can. 

Yes, I agree.  I guess I would say that people who are abusing others don’t deserve loyalty.  And certainly defending/protecting someone else is more important than “loyally protecting family secrets.”  

Defending yourself against real neglect, abuse or betrayal is also, in my view, understandable and in most cases not “disloyal” because the parent or family in this case would not deserve loyalty.  Sticking with the Duggars for a moment, I think that the four daughters—who were abused by Josh but were told by their parents that it was no big deal and they had to forgive—have every right to condemn their parents publicly for betraying them, for putting Josh and the family name ahead of their needs, etc.  If they want to and feel this will bring them some sort of relief or closure.  

Anyway, the thing about Harry and Meghan is that what they are reporting does not come up to the level of abuse and can be interpreted in more than one way.  Like you I think the royals are like a lot of other parents around the world—flawed, but doing their best.  And yeah, I too wonder if Harry thinks everyone else in the world has perfect families. ?  

Maybe he should take a closer look at Meghan’s family?  Maybe he thinks this washing of dirty linen in public is a “fine American thing,” because that is what his father-in-law does?  (Sarcasm intended.) ??‍♀️