Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary

[SoSoNosy]

In the top picture, it's clear who is alpha.

[tabitha2]

Never doubt: Meghan got her pliant needy stepping stone and away she goes. 

[viii]

I don't understand why people call Harry a stepping stone. How far else can she go? She's literally married to a prince of probably the most famous royal family. I mean, I guess money wise she could go higher (like Bill Gates, Jeffery Bezos kind of money) but for fame and recognition, I think she's kind of reached the limit. 

[FluffySnowball]

On 9/8/2021 at 8:55 PM, viii said:

I think Andrew has spent enough time on private islands. 

I wouldn’t mind hearing he gets shipped off to some prison island though 😂

[TN-peach]

The one when they are walking is the only one where Harry looks comfortable. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, viii said:

I don't understand why people call Harry a stepping stone. How far else can she go? She's literally married to a prince of probably the most famous royal family. I mean, I guess money wise she could go higher (like Bill Gates, Jeffery Bezos kind of money) but for fame and recognition, I think she's kind of reached the limit. 

I  suppose it could be argued that in marrying Harry she got boosted to a position from which she can develop recognition in her own right and on her own terms.  I am not thinking she was (or is) this calculating, but the way it has worked out is she was a B list actress with a moderate following but now she is an A list celebrity with a huge following.  

She is believed by some to have political ambitions, and she and Harry clearly feel that it is their place to speak up about all sorts of  issues, from Afghanistan to Covid, to Global Warming,  to the importance of voting and women’s rights.  She may envision herself transitioning to some distinguished public service and/or diplomatic role. Such an ambition would not have been realistically possible when she was just one more actress.

I do believe that Harry and Meghan are very much in love, and I think also that they are (for now, at least) living the life they want to live.  Ironically, I believe that while they relish the same life, they relish it for different reasons.  Harry rejoices to be living “normal life”; Meghan enjoys leading a life of privilege beyond what she could have expected.  😉

It is possible that at some point the love will wear out and/or that they will want to live differently. However, for now, I think that while Meghan is in love with him in part because of the prestige he brought with him (and his willingness to follow her lead), that love is sincere.

[viii]

True, if she divorced him she wouldn't have to marry a 'higher' man, she could use her own position to attract what she wants. Before her relationship with Harry, I think B-list is generous, I'd say she was more likely C-list. Her relationship with Harry was the only thing that catapulted her to A-list fame and recognition. 

I personally believe they're currently in love and that she never had an agenda when they first got together. However, if truth came out saying otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised either. Meghan is an activist and likes to use her voice, and Harry was/is an excellent platform to stand on while doing so. 

[Coconut Flan]

Apparently, the cover and news was not universally well received:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9994007/Social-media-explodes-memes-mocking-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Time-magazine-cover.html

[SoSoNosy]

Either he was bending over or she was standing on something; he's 6'1" and she is 5'6" so even in heels he would be taller.

[just_ordinary]

I like the photos with the green outfits. Someone said they look like a fashion/watch commercial and I cannot un-see it now, but they are indeed nice. But that cover? Since when has H so much hair again? Why does M look double as wide? What’s up with the forest in the back? Why is H put so strangely in the back? Sorry, but this cover screams to be mocked. Why did they approve it?
What I find most irritating is that their photos scream “rich saviour” while their whole stick is “grounded, relatable, boots on the ground). For people that insist that’s it’s about the unheard voices, most of the things we get are very much cantered around themselves. 

I am not surprised they made the list. But I think if they want to move up into the more prestigious categories they finally need to create some consistent, meaningful output via their platforms (Archwell/Archwell Audio).

[Anna Bolinas]

On 9/13/2021 at 3:30 PM, EmCatlyn said:

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? 

My wording might have been a bit flippant. But for the holidays and other family events, if Andrew can be tolerated, then so can anyone else in my opinion. 

 

On 9/13/2021 at 3:30 PM, EmCatlyn said:

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.

Wasn’t a statement made by William about Meghan, about how that “bloody woman treated my staff so horribly”? And haven’t there been some passive aggressive leaks and stories—like after the racism accusations, there was suddenly a story about William’s black friend? Hasn’t the palace responded to some of what Harry and Meghan have said? They seem to be sniping back and forth. 

 

On 9/13/2021 at 3:30 PM, EmCatlyn said:

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.

I respectfully disagree because I feel like being a public example of a good citizen would include not sheltering an accused rapist. Why should Andrew not be held accountable for his crimes? Why should he and his alleged victim not be given their day in court? The queen is the head of the Church of England—is it a good example for your average Anglican to say that cavorting with sex traffickers is okay, provided you’re the prince of England? 

 

On 9/13/2021 at 3:30 PM, EmCatlyn said:

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.

To me, Andrew has potentially committed grave crimes. So if anything, they need to be way more condemnatory of him than of anyone else in the family. Because this is not comparable to, say, Meghan and Kate fighting over Charlotte’s tights. You could never discuss that with the public and it would be whatever. But the family being silent, to me, is them saying that they would rather protect their own reputation than see someone be brought to justice for a crime. And when you are in a public position, and when you are in a position of trust and authority, and when you want to be taken seriously as an example of morality and duty, you can’t just shrug your shoulders and hold your tongue about a potential rapist in your midst, especially when you /are/ okay with criticisms of other things, be them racist comments or nasty treatment of staff.

[Grandma D]

Meghan is a narcissist and everything she does is to give her control and fuel for her own personal gain. Harry fell for her hard and she gobbled him up quickly, as narcissists do, and isolated him from his family before he could realize what she truly is. 

[KnittingOwl]

Someone described the cover as Harry is Meghan’s stylist and is about to describe what he did with her layers 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

My wording might have been a bit flippant. But for the holidays and other family events, if Andrew can be tolerated, then so can anyone else in my opinion. 

My point was that we have no evidence that Harry and Meghan would not be “tolerated.”  In fact, the immediate family has made a point of congratulating about birthdays, anniversaries, etc.  My impression is that if they came to the UK for Christmas they would be invited to attend the usual family events, everyone would fuss about the children, and be civil to one another.  There might not be a lot of warmth towards Meghan and Harry from some quarters, but we have no reason to believe there is any warmth toward Andrew except maybe from his daughters and the queen in private. (Oh, and Fergie.)

The stuff that has come out about William speaking angrily to friends about Meghan (after she allegedly bullied staff) is ordinary family “quarrel” stuff.  My (adult) daughter refers to the woman her father married 2 years ago (long after the divorce) as “that awful woman.”  (Apparently the woman is a bully.) She still socializes with her, buys xmas presents for her, etc.  The difference is that since we are not celebrities, the press has not heard about it. 😉

As far as Andrew goes, my main point is that comparisons between how Harry has been treated and how Andrew has been treated by the royals don’t make a lot of sense to me. IIrc, I see no evidence that Harry has been treated worse, but in any case, the circumstances are different.

[just_ordinary]

4 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

[…]

Wasn’t a statement made by William about Meghan, about how that “bloody woman treated my staff so horribly”? And haven’t there been some passive aggressive leaks and stories—like after the racism accusations, there was suddenly a story about William’s black friend? Hasn’t the palace responded to some of what Harry and Meghan have said? They seem to be sniping back and forth. 

[…]

The difference is that we have direct quotes from H&M. We have direct quotes from people we know are close friends. We have almost non direct quotes from the BRF or people that are known to be friends with them. No one had heard of the newspaper guy before or has seen him around them. He might be warm business relationship but that’s not friendship. And he was part of one big project? Hardly a trusted employee or business partner. But yes, it was so cringey and didn’t help the BRF or Wiliam at all. Tabloids love to quote “palace sources”, “high ranking officials” but there is seldom a name or a position revealed. It could all be completely made up. And it often enough is. Just think of Kate’s various pregnancies all backed by “inside palace sources”. We have not heard anything from their private friend circle. Wiliam might have said it, but also might not. That’s not so say that there are no leaks (wanted and unwanted) but the credibility is very different. 
We got some written statements by BP, Wiliam declaring they are not a racist family and Sophie and Edward saying they stay out of it. That’s really all we got from them. I think the most interesting move was BP not commenting on the BBC article citing a source saying HMTQ was not asked permission about the baby name and being not impressed with that move. Especially after H&M threatened to sue but had to back off as BP stayed silently and the BBC seemed to certain to be right. I think that was the first time a “source” got that much backhand credibility from BP. And that’s HMTQ, not Charles (CH) or Wiliam (KP). Or maybe not? They often don’t comment and ignore it till it’s over. So maybe BBC stood their ground, H&M chose to not pursue it and BP just ignored the whole story.

Edited September 16, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Coconut Flan]

It's the Post, but that doesn't mean they're totally wrong:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/15/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-times-most-insufferable/

[PoppyPeace]

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

It's the Post, but that doesn't mean they're totally wrong:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/15/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-times-most-insufferable/

From the article: 

"Did you catch Harry flying private a few weeks ago? Polo match in Aspen. Such a great look for these two self-appointed eco-warriors."

So nope. The Post is not totally wrong.  

[Cat Damon]

In the blurb from the magazine was this: "“In a world where everyone has an opinion about people they don’t know, the duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don’t know,” chef José Andrés wrote for the magazine. “They don’t just opine. They run towards the struggle.”"

But... what actually have they done? What are they running toward? I cannot think of one thing they've actually done aside from being papped at a food bank once and lecturing people from their mansion. They have such a large platform and could do so much good (and I know that with covid and everything with a new baby it's not like they're going to be out every day, it just wasn't safe) but they aren't doing anything at all besides releasing videos with other celebrities. It's pretty disappointing. 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Cat Damon said:

In the blurb from the magazine was this: "“In a world where everyone has an opinion about people they don’t know, the duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don’t know,” chef José Andrés wrote for the magazine. “They don’t just opine. They run towards the struggle.”"

But... what actually have they done? What are they running toward? I cannot think of one thing they've actually done aside from being papped at a food bank once and lecturing people from their mansion. They have such a large platform and could do so much good (and I know that with covid and everything with a new baby it's not like they're going to be out every day, it just wasn't safe) but they aren't doing anything at all besides releasing videos with other celebrities. It's pretty disappointing. 

I was actually disappointed in José Andres.  I thought he was more down-to-earth than that.  I hope he is sucking up because they make big donations, not because he is over-awed by the quasi-royal “rebel” glamour. 😉

As for what they have done, the answer is they are promising money and/or attention (which may bring money) to causes they support.  Reminds me of the line from Fiddler on the Roof “When you are rich they think you really know,” (only in this case it might be “when you are a celebrity” instead of just “rich”).

They “talk the talk” and identify themselves as “woke”— but I prefer people who talk less and do more.  

 

 

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

It's the Post, but that doesn't mean they're totally wrong:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/15/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-times-most-insufferable/

It’s good snark, regardless of the source.  Nothing they are saying is “news,” and they say it with some wit.

I particularly liked

Quote

Harry has a memoir due soon, one in which he’s rumored to go after stepmother Camilla and shame the royals some more. After all, he’s not getting $20 million without spilling some dirt.

But remember, everyone: Be kind. 

And keep paying attention to the Sussexes, even though what they really want is privacy.

I think Harry and Meghan’s talk about encouraging “kindness” is particularly ironic given how unkind they have been to his family.  They are clearly too self-absorbed to see it.

My own theory is that Harry and Meghan see their posts about public issues as a sort of “example” for what the BRF ought to be doing/saying. 🙄

[PoppyPeace]

I was really rooting for them in the beginning, but that was prior to their wedding. I desperately wanted to like Meghan, but things got weirder and more uncomfortable as time went on. 

I listen to a podcast called "Even the Rich" and there are is a series about Diana and Meghan being rebels.  I love the podcast and it was interesting, but I do think much of Meghan's version of her life with the royals is bullish!t.  A point I often read is that Kate wasn't scrutinized the way Meghan was. If I remember correctly, Kate had it pretty rough as well. 

[EmCatlyn]

3 minutes ago, PoppyPeace said:

I was really rooting for them in the beginning, but that was prior to their wedding. I desperately wanted to like Meghan, but things got weirder and more uncomfortable as time went on. 

I listen to a podcast called "Even the Rich" and there are is a series about Diana and Meghan being rebels.  I love the podcast and it was interesting, but I do think much of Meghan's version of her life with the royals is bullish!t.  A point I often read is that Kate wasn't scrutinized the way Meghan was. If I remember correctly, Kate had it pretty rough as well. 

I have only recently begun to sort of follow royal news, and I was quite aware, just from the occasional headline, that Kate was being scrutinized, criticized, mocked, condemned, etc. through most of the years she was known to be William’s girl friend, and when he broke up with her for a while they were brutal. She has endured with great grace and patience both William’s indecision/unwillingness to commit and the press’s intrusion on her life, her choices, etc.  She was called “Waity Katey” and her family was presented as lacking in breeding. (I remember particularly her mother being criticized for chewing gum at some big deal — Ascot?) 

Maybe it’s because US press was not as cruel to Meghan as British press, but I did not find that Meghan was treated any worse and in some cases she may have been treated better.  The mainstream press seemed really happy that the BRC was acquiring a bi-racial member, and though I saw some third-hand reports/commentary about nastiness in the tabloids, it seemed balanced by reports full of good will.

My impression is that Meghan was less ready to accept any criticism or negative coverage.  Whereas Kate endured it, Meghan wanted the royals to fix it.

I cannot say if it is worse to be mocked because of one’s race/nationality and tendency to “bully” or because of one’s lower-social class and alleged lack of gumption.  However, I can say that Kate’s response of dignified silence is the more effective one in the long run.

[PoppyPeace]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

The mainstream press seemed really happy that the BRC was acquiring a bi-racial member, and though I saw some third-hand reports/commentary about nastiness in the tabloids, it seemed balanced by reports full of good will.

Yes, the media seemed kinder to Meghan than Kate. Even Kate's pregnancy was criticized or when she made a "mean face" at her kid who she was likely trying to get to behave the way the royals wanted the poor kid to behave. 

 

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I cannot say if it is worse to be mocked because of one’s race/nationality and tendency to “bully” or because of one’s lower-social class and alleged lack of gumption.  However, I can say that Kate’s response of dignified silence is the more effective one in the long run.

I do think the British tabloids are very aggressive when it comes to the royals and Kate coming from a "commoner" background or Meghan not being British made them easy targets. Most of the negative press I saw about her being bi-racial seemed more speculative or suggestive. Maybe tabloid were doing it in hopes to make more money. It almost seemed opportunistic. I am sure it was incredibly hurtful, but I also feel like it was done in a way to attack the royal family and not Meghan. 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

On 9/15/2021 at 4:35 PM, Coconut Flan said:

Apparently, the cover and news was not universally well received:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9994007/Social-media-explodes-memes-mocking-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Time-magazine-cover.html

Shrugs..it's the Daily Heil and both  the editorial staff and readers( of which my family are avid consumers of this particular tabloid)incessantly scream about why the Sussex's should step out of the headlines while constantly and simultaneously  report and comment on their every action, regardless of the importance of said action.

If the Daily Fail stopped reporting on them and their readers refrained  from commenting, then the Sussexs would fade from the view of the vast majority of the English consciousness.

However the papers are not going to allow a cash cow to be left alone.

[Pleiades_06]

2 hours ago, PoppyPeace said:

Most of the negative press I saw about her being bi-racial seemed more speculative or suggestive

No, it was really racist. And people on this thread still seem to be forgetting/downplaying that.