Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, viii said:

Well, that might be a stretch. Her mother has proven to be a dependable and stable figure in her daughter's life. Meghan might also have family and friends that we don't know about because of their discretion. 

However, I do agree that it's likely neither Harry nor Meghan have had real examples of healthy marriages and family relationships, which explains a lot. Hopefully they can break the family cycles together and do better for their children. 

Has she, though? Thomas has custody through her teen years at least. All we actually know about Doria is that she’s willing to dress up and sit or stand around looking thoroughly placid when asked to.  Nothing else. 

[Anna Bolinas]

On 9/7/2021 at 9:03 PM, MomJeans said:

I don't think Charles, William or Kate do tolerate Andrew.  By all accounts, William and Charles were behind banning Andrew from royal duty.  Neither provides him with funds.  Neither can force Andrew to cooperate with the FBI.  We've seen no evidence of them privately socializing with Andrew. 

I don't expect them to be best buddies with Andrew. But I mean, if they can swallow their distaste and play nice with him at Christmas or any other family occasion, then they should be able to do the same with Meghan and Harry. Andrew is a pervert; Meghan and Harry are messy. I know who I would rather spend my time with, even if they did go gossiping about me later on.

[viii]

I would disagree that the Queen and Phillip were a healthy and stable marriage. I think there were a lot of power imbalances and dysfunction between the pair of them. Love - absolutely, but without the Queen being the queen, I doubt they would have stayed married. 

[just_ordinary]

Just now, viii said:

I would disagree that the Queen and Phillip were a healthy and stable marriage. I think there were a lot of power imbalances and dysfunction between the pair of them. Love - absolutely, but without the Queen being the queen, I doubt they would have stayed married. 

I don’t know about your last sentence, as in that case the power imbalance would have been like with most couples then. But I agree in so far, that this is not the kind of marriage you would pick today as role model. It was good for them and the institution. But it fucked up their kids to some degree (as do all parents, and obviously childhood and parenting 70 years ago was very different to today). But I think the BRF biggest problem is how deeply intertwined the family relationships are with their business relationships. 
H and Ms problem is not the lack of marriage role models. They seem to do fine in that department as for now. But rather the lack of stable and warm family relationships in general. You know, where you learn to overcome jealousy between siblings, where you can accept the other one fucks up and hurts you sometimes and so do you, but that you can work it out. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has some behavioural patterns that might be hard on others. But maybe they need them to cope? Or you find a way to accept them but not let them hurt you? And yes, I do not talk about abuse or violence here, but the normal dysfunctional ways all families have. I can very much disagree with my siblings life choices and mindset (no not Andrew style) but I can meet them occasionally and find common ground in other topics. And if it’s only repeating good memories from childhood or bitching about another family member together. Doesn’t mean it has to be a close and utterly warm thing. H. needs to accept his family isn’t like that. He cannot change them, nor should he.  What is good for him Isn’t necessarily good for others. Accepting that and finding a way to a distanced but amicable relationship would be good if you want to reconcile. But doing it only on your grounds is never going to work. And as long as he is fully into the whole royal side of the dynamic he will feel every hard business decision as a snub against him personally.

[Xanariel]

6 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

I don't expect them to be best buddies with Andrew. But I mean, if they can swallow their distaste and play nice with him at Christmas or any other family occasion, then they should be able to do the same with Meghan and Harry. Andrew is a pervert; Meghan and Harry are messy. I know who I would rather spend my time with, even if they did go gossiping about me later on.

I find this to be a bit 'whataboutism', frankly. 

By this logic, Meghan had zero right to ever cut out her father - who 'only' spoke about her to the press, sold photos and gave multiple interviews airing his grievances - when she was fully happy to hang around Andrew and Fergie. If we're being technical, even Samantha hasn't actually done anything that's near the scope of what Fergie has done over the years, let alone Andrew.

Should Meghan have sucked it up and let her father around her children, seeing as she was OK with being around Andrew - indeed, she and Harry have not once addressed his situation despite being more than happy to put family members like Kate and Charles on blast, and despite Harry getting directly asked about him?

Or we can agree that people have the right to draw boundaries where they want to, and Meghan hanging around the Yorks didn't mean she was obliged to allow the Markles into her life? 

Regardless of what the Cambridges or Wales feel about Andrew, they have every right to decide whether or not they want to be around Harry and Meghan.

Harry's not just 'gossiping' about his family - he's consistently leaking via a journalist who already wrote a bestseller exposing the Sussexes'version of events. He's aiming to flog books about his family life to an audience of millions and apparently still has more to write.

He's also accused his family of essentially trying to get his children killed by denying them security, when he knew full well the decision wasn't even theirs to make, and made it clear that he's going to air out any responses they made via Gayle King. He's making money off his family just as much as Thomas did Meghan. 

William and his circle have been fairly consistent through his life how badly impacted he was by his parents' conflict getting dragged through the papers as a child, feeling that he could barely trust anyone because the papers hacked phones and were stealing stories only his close friends should know, and continuing to get intrusions into his adult life like Kate getting photographed topless and her private medical information getting aired on a DJ show. 

He has every right to decide that he doesn't want to be around a couple who are very happy to run to the press at every opportunity - especially as he would only be following Meghan's example of cutting out family members who do so. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Xanariel

[AmazonGrace]

In an ideal world, I'd love to cut both the perverts and the backstabbing gossips out of my life.

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

In an ideal world, I'd love to cut both the perverts and the backstabbing gossips out of my life.

Unless you are  related to the British Royal Family, Andrew and Hary and Meghan aren’t much in your life.  😉

The Royal family doesn’t find them that easy to avoid and ignore.  Most families have a couple of embarrassing relatives, but unless the family is famous, it’s not hard to keep the embarrassments in the background.

[MomJeans]

On 9/9/2021 at 12:10 AM, Anna Bolinas said:

I don't expect them to be best buddies with Andrew. But I mean, if they can swallow their distaste and play nice with him at Christmas or any other family occasion, then they should be able to do the same with Meghan and Harry. Andrew is a pervert; Meghan and Harry are messy. I know who I would rather spend my time with, even if they did go gossiping about me later on.

Again, we've had no evidence that William and Kate even speak to Andrew, let alone "play nice" when he is around.  

To me, attendance at a private christening has no relationship with whether William's grandmother invites her son to events that the Cambridges are also invited to.  Of which this year has only been a funeral.  I don't see the Cambridge attendance at the funeral as some proof of a double standard in their lives or an endorsement of Andrew.

And like Xanariel said, I also believe all people have the right to set healthy boundaries in the lives about who they want to socialize with.  I am related to someone who is an absolutely terrible human being. I sometimes see him at family weddings.  I may even had said the odd "hello" while passing by, as social customs are drilled into me. That doesn't mean I have to let other people remain in my life that continuously hurt my feelings or embarrass me.  

[EmCatlyn]

On 9/8/2021 at 11:10 PM, Anna Bolinas said:

I don't expect them to be best buddies with Andrew. But I mean, if they can swallow their distaste and play nice with him at Christmas or any other family occasion, then they should be able to do the same with Meghan and Harry. Andrew is a pervert; Meghan and Harry are messy. I know who I would rather spend my time with, even if they did go gossiping about me later on.

I don’t follow this.  To the best of my knowledge neither Charles nor William has refused to “play nice” with Harry and Meghan “at Christmas or any other family occasion.”  There is a lot of speculation about the Sussexes being/not being invited to Christmas with the Queen, but I think if the Sussexes come to spend Christmas in the UK, things may be strained at times but the rest of the family will not refuse to socialize with them.  That’s what civilized people do, and the Windsors tend to be civilized.

People keep wanting to compare how Andrew and Harry have been treated, but we don’t know how Andrew is treated by the family in private, and we don’t really know how Harry is being treated either.  So how can we compare?

The two situations are very different.  

[KnittingOwl]

On 9/8/2021 at 2:28 AM, EmCatlyn said:

Therefore, my latest theory is that if the Sussexes do plan to have Lili christened in the UK, it may not happen until the Jubilee.  This would be a little on the late side for an Anglican christening — under 6 months is more common— but it’s possible.

If I’m remembering correctly, August’s christening was postponed due to a guest with Covid symptoms in mid-July when he was 5 months old. So he will be well older. I’m guessing it’s not that uncommon right now during the pandemic. Everything is different when it involves groups of people, the main person having basically no immune system. 

[nelliebelle1197]

On 9/8/2021 at 5:28 AM, EmCatlyn said:

The main question I think is whether Meghan and Harry will fly back with the children before the Jubilee to have Lili christened.  

There is no question that if they choose to do so, they would be able to have a christening in the UK with the “royal” christening gown and so forth. The venue could be Windsor chapel— I think the Queen would definitely allow it.  There is a question whether the Queen would attend. (She doesn’t always attend the great-grandkids christenings. She has a busy schedule.)  Since Archie’s christening was private, I am sure that Lili’s will be also, regardless of where it happens.

Scobie (the Finding Freedom author) doesn’t think that M & H will fly back for a christening.  He thinks they will wait until the Jubilee to introduce Lilibet to her great-grandmother.  His reasoning is the difficulty of traveling with such young kids. (I posted a link about this some msgs back.)  I tend to think that Scobie has (ahem) a lot inside information about the Sussexes.

Therefore, my latest theory is that if the Sussexes do plan to have Lili christened in the UK, it may not happen until the Jubilee.  This would be a little on the late side for an Anglican christening — under 6 months is more common— but it’s possible.

Traveling with little kids is not hard. My kids have flown from the US to New Zealand on discount flights with 1000 layovers and connections since they were literal infants at least once a year. The way these people would travel - likely privately with help- would no hardship.  People whose families are far away do what they need to visit if it is a priority - and there is no real hardship in travel when you can afford the perks these nobs can afford.

[Xanariel]

44 minutes ago, KnittingOwl said:

If I’m remembering correctly, August’s christening was postponed due to a guest with Covid symptoms in mid-July when he was 5 months old. So he will be well older. I’m guessing it’s not that uncommon right now during the pandemic. Everything is different when it involves groups of people, the main person having basically no immune system. 

There's definitely going to be a ton of babies christened late. I don't think it'll be a big deal, though Lilibet will probably be too big for the royals' traditional gown when the time finally comes. 

[DalmatianCat]

25 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

There's definitely going to be a ton of babies christened late. I don't think it'll be a big deal, though Lilibet will probably be too big for the royals' traditional gown when the time finally comes. 

Since the gown they’re using currently is just a replica, they can probably have a bigger replica made if it’s that important to them.

[just_ordinary]

Those gowns are often actually fitting quite a size range. The classic cut allows to fasten or widen. It’s an overthrow anyway and often gets taken off after the service and photos. They can just leave it open in the back. The length would probably cover a 90cm child. As long as the arms fit into the sleeves - and they are short and wide - this gown will easily fit Lili till she might be 2 years old.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Eugenie was christened late because Andrew was away serving in the Navy. They pinned the dress on top of what she was actually wearing.

[EmCatlyn]

14 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Traveling with little kids is not hard. My kids have flown from the US to New Zealand on discount flights with 1000 layovers and connections since they were literal infants at least once a year. The way these people would travel - likely privately with help- would no hardship.  People whose families are far away do what they need to visit if it is a priority - and there is no real hardship in travel when you can afford the perks these nobs can afford.

I tend to agree— we flew outside the country with our daughter for the first time when she was 4 months old or so.  But if Meghan’s friends have told Scobie that she won’t travel until Lili is older, then the odds are she isn’t planning to do so. (We may question the official reason, of course.) 😉

[just_ordinary]

And of course there will be an older child with them anyway. Maybe Lili is a fussy baby. Maybe A is a pain in the ass right now- he is two or three isn’t he? I think there are many legit reasons why you would want your child to be older to travel. Not every time it’s easier to fly with a baby (hello super eruptive throw ups or ear problems) than a toddler. All easier to handle if you fly in tour private jet I guess.

I can also absolutely see another case of one thing said, one thing assumed here. They wait till she is older doesn’t have to mean BECAUSE they want her to be older, just that she will be older. They could totally mean BECAUSE no way are we meeting this evil family now we are still sulking, BECAUSE we are not on speaking terms atm, BECAUSE we will come over anyway next summer, BECAUSE we are actually busy and cannot make room, BECAUSE the COVID restrictions are too annoying (the children will not be vaccinated or recovered and option tested gets rejected more and more)….. there are hundreds of possibilities.

[Anna Bolinas]

On 9/9/2021 at 5:07 AM, Xanariel said:

Regardless of what the Cambridges or Wales feel about Andrew, they have every right to decide whether or not they want to be around Harry and Meghan.

Indeed. I just don't understand, when it comes to the Cambridges, the Waleses, or the Sussexes, why you would rather be hanging out with a pervert than with your standard issue shitty family member. I would understand it more if they cut out Andrew in the same way that they've all cut each other out--and in Meghan's case, the same way that she's cut out her father's side of the family.

And I find it hypocritical on all sides that the Cambridges, Waleses, and Sussexes are all banging about how everyone else is a backstabbing gossip who wants to ruin everyone's lives while ignoring the huge elephant in the room. And perhaps it wouldn't matter as much if they really were just any other family.

But I am bringing my own biases to this, and I freely admit that. I find it cloying how the royals come across to me as believing that they really are "better" than everyone else. Whether it's the typical aristocratic snobbery of someone like Princess Michael of Kent, or the "we have a God-given duty and a role to uphold, and everything else is subordinate to that" attitude of the Queen, it irritates me. Because I know they really are just human beings, and I know they have flaws and foibles like everyone else. They are not actually intrinsically "better" than me or anyone else. And so in my opinion, they have two choices in the wake of the mishandling of Andrew's situation--either they can be "like everyone else" and have their family secrets and their dramas and their messes behind closed doors, or they can be "better" and actually set a moral example. They can't have it both ways--at least, not to me.

[DalmatianCat]

15 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Indeed. I just don't understand, when it comes to the Cambridges, the Waleses, or the Sussexes, why you would rather be hanging out with a pervert than with your standard issue shitty family member. I would understand it more if they cut out Andrew in the same way that they've all cut each other out--and in Meghan's case, the same way that she's cut out her father's side of the family.

Then again…we don’t *know* that either the Sussexes or the Cambridges haven’t cut Andrew out of their lives. The Royal family doesn’t usually post pictures of their private holiday gatherings or any private family events really, so they could be having nothing to do with Andrew outside of occasionally showing up on a balcony at the same time (even that hasn’t happened lately). The Cambridges say very little about any of their thoughts/opinions that don’t have to do with their charity work.

The Sussexes may also no longer have anything to do with Andrew, but they just haven’t bothered mentioning it because…they seem to prefer to talk about themselves. Or…Harry could be afraid if he makes a statement condemning his uncle, his uncle has some stories of his own to share about Harry’s wild years that he’d prefer not to get out.

[just_ordinary]

@DalmatianCat very true. I mean, we *know* in general very little for certain. 85% is gossip and rumours that have been around for so long that they are taken for fact but there is no proof whatsoever and never has been. Some things seem to be reasonable conclusions but that’s the best in most cases. 

[EmCatlyn]

16 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Indeed. I just don't understand, when it comes to the Cambridges, the Waleses, or the Sussexes, why you would rather be hanging out with a pervert than with your standard issue shitty family member. I would understand it more if they cut out Andrew in the same way that they've all cut each other out--and in Meghan's case, the same way that she's cut out her father's side of the family.

What makes you think that they would “rather be hanging out with a pervert”?

I haven’t seen a lot of “hanging out” among these people.  What events are you thinking of? 

No one in the family has made negative public statements about other members of the family except Harry and Meghan.  Everything else we know is just rumor. So the family’s refusal to comment negatively on Andrew is no different from their silence about William or Harry or anyone else.

I do agree that the Royals are in a strange position.  They are ordinary people, but they have been assigned symbolic value.  It is very hard to be a living symbol.

My opinion is that the expectation that they must be an “example” should not extend to their private lives.  Their role should be restricted to ceremonial participation in public functions, being public examples of good citizenship, respect for history, etc.  But I am not a British subject. 😉

Back to Harry and Meghan, they have every right to want private lives, and I can understand that they were unhappy with their situation before they left.  I don’t blame them at all for leaving (though I think they should have worked things out with the family before announcing that they were “stepping back”). 

However, I do not think it is all right for them to keep calling attention to themselves and building their “brand” at the expense of his family.  Their refusal to speak about Andrew is actually better, in my eyes, than Harry’s comments about his father’s failures as a parent and Meghan’s comments about Kate being “favored” etc.  

Family dirty linen should be washed behind closed doors.  Insofar as Andrew is dirty linen, everyone in the family should be quiet about him.  I don’t see their silence as approval or even tolerance, and I don’t see any evidence that anyone except Fergie is really hanging out with Andrew.

 

 

[MamaJunebug]

NVM - I’ll Google it!  

Edited September 14, 2021 by MamaJunebug

[omilona]

On 7/1/2021 at 6:12 PM, Topaz said:

When Charles and Camilla got married there was talk about them having the ceremony in Windsor Castle. That would have involved the Castle being licensed for weddings and other people would have been able to have weddings there too. So they married in a registry office. That was a civil wedding but Harry must have been aware of the fact that you can’t just get married anywhere, even if he missed the bits about needing certain vows and at least 2 witnesses.

2 witnesses, in a public place and under a roof. So three for three impossible. There is no way #6 as grandson of the Defender of the Faith of COE did not know this. I can accept that Molotov Mayhem was ignorant. You cannot get married in UK in a garden, period. And the witnesses and public place have to do with "If anyone here present can show any just cause why they should not lawfully be married" part. How can anyone object if there are no witnesses and the ceremony takes place in secret?

On 9/12/2021 at 12:13 AM, just_ordinary said:

And of course there will be an older child with them anyway. Maybe Lili is a fussy baby. Maybe A is a pain in the ass right now- he is two or three isn’t he? I think there are many legit reasons why you would want your child to be older to travel. Not every time it’s easier to fly with a baby (hello super eruptive throw ups or ear problems) than a toddler. All easier to handle if you fly in tour private jet I guess.

I can also absolutely see another case of one thing said, one thing assumed here. They wait till she is older doesn’t have to mean BECAUSE they want her to be older, just that she will be older. They could totally mean BECAUSE no way are we meeting this evil family now we are still sulking, BECAUSE we are not on speaking terms atm, BECAUSE we will come over anyway next summer, BECAUSE we are actually busy and cannot make room, BECAUSE the COVID restrictions are too annoying (the children will not be vaccinated or recovered and option tested gets rejected more and more)….. there are hundreds of possibilities.

Does anyone here think that #6 and his first wife travel without hot and cold running help? Come on.

[Coconut Flan]

https://www.geo.tv/latest/370182-prince-harry-meghan-markle-shocked-by-financial-freedom-after-megxit

Who looks like children playing house lead by Hollywood PR people?

[viii]

Harry and Meghan are on the cover of Time Magazine for being influential. Influential for what, I'm not sure 🤣

Harry looks heavily photoshopped and Meghan looks nice in green. 

Spoiler