Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary

[EmCatlyn]

2 minutes ago, Anna Bolinas said:

It's not inherently racist, but if a bunch of stuffy white aristocrats looked at a biracial American woman and said to her, "Oh, you don't belong here with us. You're not one of us and you never will be. Better to just leave now because you will never fit in here," I think it's reasonable to assume that there is both racism and classism present in that remark. That is the context, and it's very different from me saying, "Someone from New York can't be a Philadelphia sports fan. You're not one of us."

And those aristocrats can feel all they want that it's true that Meghan will never have had the same experiences as them, but I don't find it particularly ~classy~ to point those kinds of things out to someone, especially if you don't know them that well. Call me an ugly, ignorant American, but in Meghan's position, I would've thrown hands with these snobs like two years ago. 

Just to clarify, we don’t know that anyone actually said to Harry of Meghan that she wasn’t “one of us.”  Further, I have not heard that anyone actually said to Meghan, “You're not one of us and you never will be. Better to just leave now because you will never fit in here.”   Mostly we have been hypothesizing what the claim that there was concern about bow dark Archie would be based on.

One possibility suggested is that the statement(s) to Harry that were reported to Meghan were not specifically about the baby’s skin color but about Meghan being from a different world.  We don’t know how such a concern was expressed and how it morphed in the Sussexes’ minds into a question about skin tone.

[TeaGrannie]

My library had “Finding Freedom” so I checked it out to see what was said. A couple interesting points were made. The infamous who made who cry at the wedding fittings is presented as no one cried. 
 

It also says they decided to forgo a title and have Archie be a private citizen until he was of an age to choose. 
 

Interesting read actually. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, TeaGrannie said:

My library had “Finding Freedom” so I checked it out to see what was said. A couple interesting points were made. The infamous who made who cry at the wedding fittings is presented as no one cried. 
 

It also says they decided to forgo a title and have Archie be a private citizen until he was of an age to choose. 
 

Interesting read actually. 

Interesting, and not what they said to Oprah. ? 

 

[Xanariel]

The Finding Freedom contradictions are really interesting to me, because they admitted in legal documents that they'd had people "fact-check" the book - not that they could claim any less, considering it included details of private one-on-one conversations and charming tidbits like Meghan's willingness to pee in the woods. 

The only reason I can think of for the discrepancies is that Harry and Meghan really hadn't been expected to lose as much as they did in late February/early March as the review year came to a close, and they were so angry and bitter that they decided to put the family on blast in a way that wouldn't have happened if they'd got what they wanted. 

So you go from "Meghan and Harry are so down-to-earth and freedom-loving that they're raising their kid privately - no title here, the public has no claim on him" to "they won't let him be a prince and they don't have the right!" 

And the Kate stuff is really intriguing, because FF downplayed it so much as "no one cried" that it definitely looked like Kate had been upset at least and they wanted to move off it quickly. As royal journalists have said since that sources are still insisting that Kate cried, and also that she went around with a bunch of flowers to make peace with Meghan only to have the door slammed in her face, I'm pretty curious over exactly what went down - and why Meghan didn't bother to correct the "no one cried" claim if she had been left in tears. 

[DalmatianCat]

4 hours ago, Xanariel said:

And the Kate stuff is really intriguing, because FF downplayed it so much as "no one cried" that it definitely looked like Kate had been upset at least and they wanted to move off it quickly. As royal journalists have said since that sources are still insisting that Kate cried, and also that she went around with a bunch of flowers to make peace with Meghan only to have the door slammed in her face, I'm pretty curious over exactly what went down - and why Meghan didn't bother to correct the "no one cried" claim if she had been left in tears. 

My speculation from all the tidbits of information has always been that Meghan most likely did cry as well as Kate, but not in the middle of the situation like (it appears from most accounts) Kate did. I’m guessing Meghan cried after the incident, probably in private, at the realization at how much she’d just screwed up the situation with her future SIL, knowing she was wrong, knowing she could have handled the situation differently, pre-wedding nerves, and the stress that was going on with her dad. There were a lot of things at play, but I doubt that Kate saying something like, “This dress will make Charlotte trip. I will not let her wear it until you give the seamstress permission to alter it” was the actual thing that caused the tears.

“No one cried. She made me cry. Wait, we both cried,” was probably just the easiest way for Meghan to salvage the situation and deflect from all the other drama going on.
 

Or she honestly can’t remember how it all went down. Between Harry yelling about a tiara, her dad having a heart attack, her best friends coming into town, her half-sister giving interviews right and left, the situation with Kate might not even have been something she remembered until it appeared in the tabloids.

[Xanariel]

2 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

My speculation from all the tidbits of information has always been that Meghan most likely did cry as well as Kate, but not in the middle of the situation like (it appears from most accounts) Kate did. I’m guessing Meghan cried after the incident, probably in private, at the realization at how much she’d just screwed up the situation with her future SIL, knowing she was wrong, knowing she could have handled the situation differently, pre-wedding nerves, and the stress that was going on with her dad. There were a lot of things at play, but I doubt that Kate saying something like, “This dress will make Charlotte trip. I will not let her wear it until you give the seamstress permission to alter it” was the actual thing that caused the tears.

“No one cried. She made me cry. Wait, we both cried,” was probably just the easiest way for Meghan to salvage the situation and deflect from all the other drama going on.
 

Or she honestly can’t remember how it all went down. Between Harry yelling about a tiara, her dad having a heart attack, her best friends coming into town, her half-sister giving interviews right and left, the situation with Kate might not even have been something she remembered until it appeared in the tabloids.

Yeah, in all fairness I don't think there's necessarily a "villain" in the crying incident however it went down. You had two people, one of whom was barely postpartum and wrangling kids, the other of whom was preparing for a multimillion-pound wedding in front of a global audience and dealing with her dad humiliating her and causing so much uncertainty. It's not surprising that tempers might have flared over something minor, and that one or both might have gone off in tears but got over it quickly. 

It just seems a little strange to me that Meghan seemed to look at this as the turning point in her press and something that the Palace should have protected her from (though they issued a response at the time to say that no one had cried). But when she has the chance to correct the narrative on two separate occasions, it goes from "there was no issue, Kate didn't cry" to "actually, Kate made me cry". 

In other royal news, the royal accounts have been published and there are some things in there causing discussion:

1. The cost to the taxpayer increased by about £18 million. I think there's a very good chance we're going to see that "slimmed-down monarchy" publicly demonstrated sooner rather than later, because Charles is very aware the public reacts badly to the idea of an extended, expensive BRF. 

2. Buckingham Palace has revealed its percentage of staff of an ethnic minority background for the first time - they've stated this is part of a new transparency, but that they "must do more" and are not where they'd like to be. 8.5% are from a minority background, as opposed to 13% in the general UK population - they're aiming for 10% over the next few years. 

3. Charles was funding the Sussexes from a pot of about 4.4 million shared across other expenses (it doesn't say exactly how much they received, but he's said to have allocated them a "substantial fund") into the summer of 2020. Harry obviously claimed to Oprah that he was "cut off" in early 2020. 

Clarence House's spokesman, when quizzed on this, replied "I wouldn't acknowledge they are dramatically different. All I can tell you are the facts". 

The Sussexes' spokesperson claimed there was no contradiction, because Harry had been referring to the financial year, which begins in April. But I think there was at least an implication in the interview that Harry was cut off as a result of protecting his family by leaving - in March 2020 - whereas a summer deadline seems to support that Charles did in fact contribute until they were financially independent (as they signed huge deals soon after leaving). 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Xanariel

[just_ordinary]

12 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Just to clarify, because you seem to subscribe to every US stereotype in the book: this is not US work culture. This is entitled and crappy but isn’t necessarily a cultural phenomenon. Stop ascribing cultural (and racial/classist) reasons for Meghan’s behavior. This has always been my main issue with criticism directed towards her: people try to make about her background. If she were a white Brit, this wouldn’t happen. She’s an asshole but not because of the stereotypes people on this thread like to subscribe to.

Huh? If you look at US employees rights next to what the majority of European countries have (including unions and their power) I feel it absolutely ok to describe a general cultural difference. Sorry, but knowing about how arbitrary things like sick days, health care, parental leave, protection against dismissal are handled….. 

But yes, I admit my idea about work culture in terms of how you are treated on a personal basis might be highly flawed. But I think the legal situation reflects a general POV on the employee-employer relationships.

Doesn’t mean that’s the same in every state and every company, I know that. 

Coming from this background is definitely a reason why you could clash, but nothing both parties couldn’t get over it. And yes, if she was a Brit there would be no one trying to find an explanation why it went wrong. She just would be called lots of names. Just as Harry is. I would argue her background is actually helping her from being dismissed straight away. 

[Pleiades_06]

36 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

Huh? If you look at US employees rights next to what the majority of European countries have (including unions and their power) I feel it absolutely ok to describe a general cultural difference. Sorry, but knowing about how arbitrary things like sick days, health care, parental leave, protection against dismissal are handled….. 

But yes, I admit my idea about work culture in terms of how you are treated on a personal basis might be highly flawed. But I think the legal situation reflects a general POV on the employee-employer relationships.

Doesn’t mean that’s the same in every state and every company, I know that. 

Coming from this background is definitely a reason why you could clash, but nothing both parties couldn’t get over it. And yes, if she was a Brit there would be no one trying to find an explanation why it went wrong. She just would be called lots of names. Just as Harry is. I would argue her background is actually helping her from being dismissed straight away. 

Seriously? You think 5am calls and bullying are US workplace culture? I’m sorry, but you are a Eurosnob. Want to hear some good workplace abuse stories from Germany? PM me.

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Pleiades_06

[EmCatlyn]

19 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Just to clarify, because you seem to subscribe to every US stereotype in the book: this is not US work culture. This is entitled and crappy but isn’t necessarily a cultural phenomenon. Stop ascribing cultural (and racial/classist) reasons for Meghan’s behavior. This has always been my main issue with criticism directed towards her: people try to make about her background. If she were a white Brit, this wouldn’t happen. She’s an asshole but not because of the stereotypes people on this thread like to subscribe to.

I don’t think Meghan’s background explains her behavior, but I do think it may explain some of her reactions and possible expectations.  In the US, as I have noted before, we process class-distinctions differently than in the UK. We also have less of a code for how hierarchical relationships “should” be handled. Therefore, if Meghan was not willing to learn, she was bound to be disappointed, angry, and probably at odds with her staff.

Among Americans (of every race) there are those with an openness to learn new ways of interacting with others and there are those who lack that openness and expect everyone to act the way they believe is “right.”  And among Americans (of every race) there are those who value being considerate to others even if the others are staff while there are those who take the view that a good employee molds himself or herself into what the employer needs and are not concerned with what the employee needs.  I would guess the same is true among the British.

In short, Meghan does not represent all Americans, and there may be WASP Brits who would make the mistakes she appears to have made.  However, the assumptions that some of us think may have influenced her attitude and behavior are rooted in American culture and her Hollywood background and experience of celebrity culture.  

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t think Meghan’s background explains her behavior, but I do think it may explain some of her reactions and possible expectations.  In the US, as I have noted before, we process class-distinctions differently than in the UK. We also have less of a code for how hierarchical relationships “should” be handled. Therefore, if Meghan was not willing to learn, she was bound to be disappointed, angry, and probably at odds with her staff.

Among Americans (of every race) there are those with an openness to learn new ways of interacting with others and there are those who lack that openness and expect everyone to act the way they believe is “right.”  And among Americans (of every race) there are those who value being considerate to others even if the others are staff while there are those who take the view that a good employee molds himself or herself into what the employer needs and are not concerned with what the employee needs.  I would guess the same is true among the British.

In short, Meghan does not represent all Americans, and there may be WASP Brits who would make the mistakes she appears to have made.  However, the assumptions that some of us think may have influenced her attitude and behavior are rooted in American culture and her Hollywood background and experience of celebrity culture.  

I definitely do remember some people claiming that Americans had a better work ethic than Europeans and therefore that Meghan's staff just weren't used to being held to the standards that an American would expect. This was early on, when the staff turnover was just beginning and there were just vague rumours about her emailing out of hours and being demanding as a boss.

I know that most Americans don't think like that and a toxic work culture would be recognised over there just as well as it is in the UK - but there was definitely a thread of that by some people defending Meghan. I did too at the time - I thought it was just unfounded rumour and there was no evidence that the turnover wasn't just a new household working out the kinks - but I remember raising an eyebrow at the idea that Brits, particularly high-ranking staff with history of working in high-pressure environments as some of the lost staff were, were lazy in comparison to an American go-getter like Meghan. 

As I've said before, the fact that Harry was just as involved in mistreating staff tells me that this wasn't so much as a culture clash as perhaps one entitled person getting together with another and deciding that anyone who didn't jump to cater to them in the way they wanted when they wanted it was simply a bad employee and could be reprimanded in any manner as the Sussexes saw fit. 

[TN-peach]

Now it is being reported that Charles was paying Harry until Summer 2020. That seems contradictory to the impression Harry was trying to give in the interview when he said he was cut off from his family. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Xanariel said:

I definitely do remember some people claiming that Americans had a better work ethic than Europeans and therefore that Meghan's staff just weren't used to being held to the standards that an American would expect.

Apparently, the Sussexes are attributing their problems with staff to the staff’s inadequacy, so that would fit with “excuses” that Meghan the American was just used to higher standards.  Personally, I never believed that.  I think the issue has always been how Meghan allegedly addressed/treated subordinates. (Even incompetent idiots should be treated with some consideration.)

One could perhaps explain this as she does not come from a tradition of “noblesse oblige” where the person in power is expected to treat staff and dependents with courtesy.  However, Harry doesn’t have that excuse.

I don’t know much about Harry, but I get the impression that he is  a very angry person.  I think he still hasn’t come to terms with his parents’ divorce and his mother’s death.  He is still on some level resentful of the many people who were allowed to grieve for Diana publicly when he was not.  He keeps digging at that pain (which is a most understandable pain) and it colors his attitude towards everything.  I fear that the so-called therapy he has been having in recent years is just scraping at scabs without promoting healing.

I can easily see how someone with so much suppressed anger could find it freeing to get angry at staff for minor things, to overreact at any perceived hitch in his and Meghan’s plans, etc.  Of course it is not right, and definitely it is not a “British  vs American” thing.   It is very sad.

 

[Pleiades_06]

2 hours ago, Xanariel said:

I definitely do remember some people claiming that Americans had a better work ethic than Europeans and therefore that Meghan's staff just weren't used to being held to the standards that an American would expect.

This is ridiculous too. People are looking for excuses for why people are assholes.

And for the record, I think it’s entirely possible everyone is an asshole in this scenario-Meghan, Harry, Charles, staff, the dogs, Americans, Brits, etc. etc. 
 

[viii]

I do think there is cultural differences that Meghan wasn’t prepared for because there’s a world of difference between celebrity and royalty - even though the two seem interchangeable at times. With the palace staff, they have set roles and hours of work, where in Hollywood you have assistants who are thrilled to be at your beck and call no matter the hour. 

I find it very easy to forgive Meghan for a lot of these differences because of course she wouldn’t know all of them. She underwent a lot in three years from dating a prince, becoming a household name (which she wasn’t before - nobody really gives a shit about Suits), a televised wedding with millions watching and then the birth of a biracial child, something that had never been done before in the British monarchy. She was held to a lot of standards and expectations. It’s easy to see why she cracked. 

Harry should have known better. Harry should have done a lot of things differently but I agree with the poster who remarked that he’s bitter and angry. He’s consumed with his past and isn’t able to bottle it up anymore. He’s so terrified of the past repeating itself that he’s protective of Meghan and their family almost to their detriment. 

It’s such a mess all around. 

[Anna Bolinas]

On 6/23/2021 at 10:14 PM, EmCatlyn said:

Just to clarify, we don’t know that anyone actually said to Harry of Meghan that she wasn’t “one of us.”

...

One possibility suggested is that the statement(s) to Harry that were reported to Meghan were not specifically about the baby’s skin color but about Meghan being from a different world.  We don’t know how such a concern was expressed and how it morphed in the Sussexes’ minds into a question about skin tone.

Right, but whether they said blatantly that Meghan wasn't one of them or more subtly that Meghan was just so different from them, I think the response would be the same. If you're going to gossip about people and about how they might not fit in with your social circle, even if you're not meaning to be malicious, you can't be surprised if the person hears about it and gets upset.

1 hour ago, viii said:

Harry should have known better. Harry should have done a lot of things differently but I agree with the poster who remarked that he’s bitter and angry. He’s consumed with his past and isn’t able to bottle it up anymore. He’s so terrified of the past repeating itself that he’s protective of Meghan and their family almost to their detriment. 

 

It's almost like being born into royalty doesn't automatically make you better at handling the pressures than the plebs, and maybe being born into such a weird, archaic, and restrictive environment is not conducive to excellent mental health. /s (not directed at anyone in particular)

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

This is ridiculous too. People are looking for excuses for why people are assholes.

And for the record, I think it’s entirely possible everyone is an asshole in this scenario-Meghan, Harry, Charles, staff, the dogs, Americans, Brits, etc. etc. 
 

Oh, come on!  Not the dogs.  Surely doggies are never to blame for anything. ?????

Were the dogs gossiping to the press or just snipping at Meghan and Harry? ?

(I agree that all the humans were probably assholes at some point.)

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, TN-peach said:

Now it is being reported that Charles was paying Harry until Summer 2020. That seems contradictory to the impression Harry was trying to give in the interview when he said he was cut off from his family. 

Harry didn’t just give that impression.  He stated outright that he had been cut off from (I think he said) the first of the year. He also said that at one point his father stopped taking his calls and that if it had not been for the money his mother left him he could not have afforded to take care of his family. He also said something about how it was almost as if his mother had known that he would need the money.  He was clearly invoking the Diana-good (feeling, warm, kind) vs Charles-bad (cold, faithless,unfeeling) binary that has been such a problem for the monarchy.  If I were Charles, I would have been devastated.

Now Harry’s represented are saying he meant from the start of the fiscal year.  But that wasn’t the impression he gave on Oprah.

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Harry didn’t just give that impression.  He stated outright that he had been cut off from (I think he said) the first of the year. He also said that at one point his father stopped taking his calls and that if it had not been for the money his mother left him he could not have afforded to take care of his family. He also said something about how it was almost as if his mother had known that he would need the money.  He was clearly invoking the Diana-good (feeling, warm, kind) vs Charles-bad (cold, faithless,unfeeling) binary that has been such a problem for the monarchy.  If I were Charles, I would have been devastated.

Now Harry’s represented are saying he meant from the start of the fiscal year.  But that wasn’t the impression he gave on Oprah.

At this stage, while the Sussexes don't appear to be outright lying most of the time, it's very clear that they're deliberately setting out to give a misleading impression - the titles, the security, getting cut off, not springing 'Lilibet' on the Queen. 

2 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Right, but whether they said blatantly that Meghan wasn't one of them or more subtly that Meghan was just so different from them, I think the response would be the same. If you're going to gossip about people and about how they might not fit in with your social circle, even if you're not meaning to be malicious, you can't be surprised if the person hears about it and gets upset.

But what Lacey is claiming that Meghan flat-out made up the claim about someone directly asking how dark Archie's skin would be in a way that suggested it would affect their opinion of him. I think he's suggesting that racism could still have been a factor in other aspects - "...though that was not to say it did not matter" - but as she was literally saying "the BRF worried about how dark my child would be, which made them deny him the title of Prince, which meant he didn't get security and his life was at risk", that's a pretty worrying discussion. 

Considering Harry and Meghan tried to turn it into a guessing game - "it's a senior royal - no, not those two, I'll narrow it down for you" - the whole thing comes across as pretty gross. 

[Smash!]

22 hours ago, Xanariel said:

1. The cost to the taxpayer increased by about £18 million. I think there's a very good chance we're going to see that "slimmed-down monarchy" publicly demonstrated sooner rather than later, because Charles is very aware the public reacts badly to the idea of an extended, expensive BRF. 

 

This is where I have an issue with Harry and Meghan. They expected to get their life taxpayer funded after leaving their royal jobs in a global pandemic, where a lot of people lost their jobs and a lot more struggled to make ends meet. In my opinion this is just gross.

At the same time the taxpayers cost to the BRF increased so much. Is there an explanation for that? Because even tough they are at least working royals it‘s still not okay to spend so much more money during a national crisis. As far as I know Great Britain has been hit hard by Covid, especially with the Alpha B117 variant.

[Topaz]

36 minutes ago, Smash! said:

This is where I have an issue with Harry and Meghan. They expected to get their life taxpayer funded after leaving their royal jobs in a global pandemic, where a lot of people lost their jobs and a lot more struggled to make ends meet. In my opinion this is just gross.

At the same time the taxpayers cost to the BRF increased so much. Is there an explanation for that? Because even tough they are at least working royals it‘s still not okay to spend so much more money during a national crisis. As far as I know Great Britain has been hit hard by Covid, especially with the Alpha B117 variant.

In fairness to them they made the first announcement in early January 2020 so well before we’d got to the pandemic stage. As a British taxpayer I wasn’t exactly keen on the idea of supporting them in their new life but the idea wasn’t (quite) as tone deaf as it now looks through the prism of the last 18 months. 
 

6 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Oh, come on!  Not the dogs.  Surely doggies are never to blame for anything. ?????

Were the dogs gossiping to the press or just snipping at Meghan and Harry? ?

(I agree that all the humans were probably assholes at some point.)

I’ve read that the dogs are quite badly behaved, although I don’t know how accurate the story was. So they might be assholes but if so it’s probably the fault of the humans that didn’t train them properly.

Of course that might be fake news distributed by the Windsor cat network. It’s been dogs, dogs, dogs for decades now and the cats are surely tired of waiting for their turn in the spotlight.

[tabitha2]

Did some say pets?

Almost all Royals seem to be Dog people. The only one I know is Princess Michael of Kent. 

 

From an Evoke article: 

 

“While the rest of the royals are dog mad Princess Michael is the odd woman out as the only cat lover in the family. The princess who is married to the Queen’s first cousin has several Siamese and Burmese cats (as well as some horses and dogs naturally).

The princess’ passion for cats reportedly began when a stray kitten crept into her bed one night as a child and she kept him hidden for several weeks. She also told the Daily Mail that while she was on her gap year in Africa she rescued a baby cheetah whose mother had been caught in a trap.

Such is her love for all things feline, the rest of the royals have now nicknamed her ‘cat’”

 

 

 

 

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, Smash! said:

This is where I have an issue with Harry and Meghan. They expected to get their life taxpayer funded after leaving their royal jobs in a global pandemic, where a lot of people lost their jobs and a lot more struggled to make ends meet. In my opinion this is just gross.

At the same time the taxpayers cost to the BRF increased so much. Is there an explanation for that? Because even tough they are at least working royals it‘s still not okay to spend so much more money during a national crisis. As far as I know Great Britain has been hit hard by Covid, especially with the Alpha B117 variant.

The renovations to Buckingham Palace are likely the reason for an increase. Per several news sources, those costs are included in the financials that were released. 

[nelliebelle1197]

11 hours ago, viii said:

I do think there is cultural differences that Meghan wasn’t prepared for because there’s a world of difference between celebrity and royalty - even though the two seem interchangeable at times. With the palace staff, they have set roles and hours of work, where in Hollywood you have assistants who are thrilled to be at your beck and call no matter the hour. 

I find it very easy to forgive Meghan for a lot of these differences because of course she wouldn’t know all of them. She underwent a lot in three years from dating a prince, becoming a household name (which she wasn’t before - nobody really gives a shit about Suits), a televised wedding with millions watching and then the birth of a biracial child, something that had never been done before in the British monarchy. She was held to a lot of standards and expectations. It’s easy to see why she cracked. 

Harry should have known better. Harry should have done a lot of things differently but I agree with the poster who remarked that he’s bitter and angry. He’s consumed with his past and isn’t able to bottle it up anymore. He’s so terrified of the past repeating itself that he’s protective of Meghan and their family almost to their detriment. 

It’s such a mess all around. 

Yeah but Meghan also did not seem ready to accept the changes to her life and sit down and learn about what was expected. I lived in England and I worked with titled folk in the City at a financial firm. It was really easy to have conversations with them about the expectations of aristocracy and all the silliness that entails.  All three guys (think baron, baronet and earl level first and second sons) were pretty laidback compared to what one would expect and fairly gossipy. I think if Meghan has bothered to ASK rather than just go about her business as a D lister would in the US, she would have been fine. Kate could have been help and an ally - Kate is middle class but really a generation  from working class. She would have been able to help Meghan adjust if that was what Meghan wanted.

[TN-peach]

According to the Lillibet's birth certificate, Harry listed his name as - First name "His Royal Highness" Last Name "Duke of Sussex.

 

Wow! That is something else. So much for not being obsessed with titles. 

8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Harry didn’t just give that impression.  He stated outright that he had been cut off from (I think he said) the first of the year. He also said that at one point his father stopped taking his calls and that if it had not been for the money his mother left him he could not have afforded to take care of his family. He also said something about how it was almost as if his mother had known that he would need the money.  He was clearly invoking the Diana-good (feeling, warm, kind) vs Charles-bad (cold, faithless,unfeeling) binary that has been such a problem for the monarchy.  If I were Charles, I would have been devastated.

Now Harry’s represented are saying he meant from the start of the fiscal year.  But that wasn’t the impression he gave on Oprah.

He said first quarter in the interview. Everyone interprets that to been January through March.  But now that the Prince Charles' finances are revealed from last year and it is shown that Prince Charles paid Prince Harry through the summer now we are being told Prince Harry was referring to British financial quarters.  I do not believe this explanation but I think that it gives the super-pro Prince Harry/Meghan supporters enough cover to say "see he was telling the truth."

[viii]

3 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I think if Meghan has bothered to ASK rather than just go about her business as a D lister would in the US, she would have been fine. Kate could have been help and an ally - Kate is middle class but really a generation  from working class. She would have been able to help Meghan adjust if that was what Meghan wanted.

I think it's easy to say in theory she should have just asked and she would have been fine, but in practice it's much more difficult than that. She had a lot stacked against her and from her POV, her race played a huge part in it. Perhaps the UK thinks more of class than race, but Meghan isn't British and so her perspective is that of an American, where race is more obvious than class. We don't know that she didn't ask for help, either. I do think it's likely she went into it with certain ideas in her head and didn't want to back down from her ideals when they refused to play out, but I do think her heart was (mostly) in the right place. 

Kate's a trickier item. On one hand, yes, she would be the perfect ally. She lived as a girlfriend for ten years and had plenty of practice with the tabloids and media invading her life. She knew exactly what it cost her to marry William and she knows what's expected of her. However, sometimes people just don't jive for whatever reason. I've read studies that state you automatically dislike 25% of the people you meet for no reason - you just don't like them. That could be the case with Meghan and Kate. 

I think it's also likely that Meghan prides herself on being a feminist and probably thought very little of Kate, who waited around ten years to get a ring on her finger without working very much. Kate has formed her entire identity into being William's girlfriend and now wife and mother. She's not exactly the ideal idol for feminism. I still like her, she's fairly harmless, but let's call a spade a spade. 

2 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

According to the Lillibet's birth certificate, Harry listed his name as - First name "His Royal Highness" Last Name "Duke of Sussex.

 

Wow! That is something else. So much for not being obsessed with titles. 

I didn't think he was allowed to use his HRH titles after his departure? 

Like seriously - where is their PR team? Where is somebody who will sit Harry down and be like 'you're not coming off as a poor, martyr victim - you look like a colossal crybaby'. I just don't understand why nobody is advising them properly! They need to find a new PR team ASAP.