Jump to content
IGNORED

Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DalmatianCat said:

. . . it makes me wonder if Harry and Meghan had never discussed the fact that their children would be biracial? How they would approach it? How they would deal with his family? His British culture? Her American culture? Listening to Harry talk, he made it seem like that conversation was the first time it occurred to him that his children would be biracial. Maybe his past racist comments and actions were flashing before his eyes. I don’t know. I do think Harry and Meghan have every right to be protective, defensive, and indignant if everything they said was true, but there’s something just slightly odd and a little off about everything they relay. We’ll probably never know the truth …

I agree that they have every right to be indignant and protective about anything that belittled Meghan for being biracial or for being American. (My impression is that upper-crust Brits are, at best, often patronizing towards Americans.)  And definitely discussions about how a mixed-race child would fit in would be cause for indignation. (The question remains whether such a discussion did happen, and what was the full context.)  The problem is that their narrative doesn’t seem consistent.  How much of their troubles are exaggerated (either for attention or out of paranoia)?   As you say, we will probably never know. 

Like you, I am inclined to wonder what exactly (if anything) Harry and Meghan had discussed about her race and the race of their future children.  Did they talk about anything practical about their future life together?  Again, we will probably never know, but it’s an interesting question.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the conversation(s?) happened. And I do believe the skin colour was mentioned. With the way the interview was edited or how they said it, it’s still unclear if it was one conversation with only H present and one conversation about the titles (so not obviously related) or if there was indeed another conversation about skin colour with her present or not. It definitely sounded as an afterthought remark in a group chat at one point and then like a intense one on one talk at another. 

He said he felt uncomfortable in the moment - so it could have been an awkward or stupid joke, a genuine interest, a very technical remark. All of this could have been out of line and be defined as racist. Context matters, but in the end what matters most is how the message is received. I don’t think anyone had the intention to offend or ridicule. But just because you don’t think you are racist, it can easily happen that you follow a certain pattern or make a remark/joke that truly offends or hurts the other one. Thing is, you might not realise it till it’s pointed out. So what I find baffling is, that H did not shut it down that moment or addressed it later with someone present in that conversation. He was in his mid thirties not a teen or young adult. He could have said, hey that’s not funny or something similar. No one says you need to jump in with blowing guns. I am sure he might have gotten either a real apology at best, or made a point at worst with the other one thinking he is a special snowflake. But hopefully not raising the topic again. Instead he swallowed it, took it to her and only then realised how bad it really was? It’s a Someone said, he said, she said situation. Recollections may vary indeed.
It’s crazy to think the BRF is that superior in her self awareness and manners around racism to the society it lives in. Most people would define themselves as anti-racist. Still doesn’t mean they truly are. Best intentions, sometimes badly executed. That’s probably true for most of us. A non pc joke about the babies skin colour is not anti-racist. It doesn’t have to be racist though (in my opinion. But I can absolutely see why one would feel differently about it). If someone shows you they feel truly hurt by it you would still apologise though even if you meant to harm or don’t really understand their problem. That’s called good manners.

I get it’s hard to stand up for yourself in a dysfunctional family. But letting them run into an open knife is not exactly shining a good light on you either. Avoiding personal confrontation seems to H and PC modus operandi. I will say, I see lots but of PC in H. 

So, why did it backfire so spectacularly for H&M?
H&am used the story in a way that makes it hard to feel genuinely sorry for them. Especially when they have a history of slightly pushing the truth (misleading but technically telling the truth). Playing, who is the racist?, didn’t help. Not revealing the content of the comment didn’t either. The used the story very obviously to feed into their narrative. Racism inside the family was never part of their several exit statements. Even the racism in the press only made it in after several re-writes if at all (can’t remember exactly).

In the end, I would be extremely offended if I made a stupid joke, without realising it’s racist, and the one offended doesn’t say a word only to run to a local newspaper and put it on the title. I would expect a chance of apologising. Now, the other can do what they want. Stupidity doesn’t safe you from the consequences. But this relationship would most definitely be dead. Because if the other one feels that bad about what I said and me, feeling unable to talk to me, there is nothing left. So, when H&M whine that people only talk very little or not with them they need to ask themselves if they did signaling that they don’t think the relationship is even any good. I am still baffled why H felt the need to forgo is actual name and only put styles and titles on the newest birth certificate. They reduced the BRF to a prop and won’t let go all while acting as if it’s the plight of the free world. It’s very cut like Fundie logic to me.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

… <snipped>
 
He said he felt uncomfortable in the moment - so it could have been an awkward or stupid joke, a genuine interest, a very technical remark.  … 

So what I find baffling is, that H did not shut it down that moment or addressed it later with someone present in that conversation. He was in his mid thirties not a teen or young adult. He could have said, hey that’s not funny or something similar. No one says you need to jump in with blowing guns. I am sure he might have gotten either a real apology at best, or made a point at worst with the other one thinking he is a special snowflake. But hopefully not raising the topic again. Instead he swallowed it, took it to her and only then realised how bad it really was? It’s a Someone said, he said, she said situation. Recollections may vary indeed. … <snip>

I agree with most of what you say, but I want to single out the above to respond to because I am not at all surprised that Harry did not know what to say and may not have even been clear in his mind that the comment crossed a line until he talked it over with Meghan.  Remember, Harry has had a history of potentially “racist” and definitely “non-pc” language.  Specifically, he referred to a fellow soldier with whom he had a friendly relationship as a “Paki,” he spoke of Afghani people as “rag heads,” and one time he clarified to someone that his then girlfriend from South Africa was not “black or anything.”  While he obviously has evolved to a greater level of awareness, he might not have reached the point where he could immediately be sure how to respond when someone else asked or said something that suggested racism.

I do not doubt that there is racism in the royal family.  However, the implication that the Sussex children were denied the “prince/princess” title because of racism is totally off.  The way Meghan framed her account, the racism implied by the conversation about the baby’s skin color was connected to the title business. Since there is evidence that the decision that Harry’s kids should not be made princes/princesses until Charles was king (and possibly not even then) had been made before Meghan met Harry, the whole account of the conversation has to be questioned.

Did someone in the family really refer to the possible color of the baby? Probably.  Did they do so innocently and without intended criticism of dark skin? (Example: “I say, old chap, wouldn’t it be funny if the baby turned out to be black but with your red hair? Is that genetically possible, or would the baby have to be lighter than Meghan because you are white?”) Did they do so offensively and with clear racist concern? (Example: “I say, old chap, don’t you sometimes worry that your children may be darker even than Meghan?”) Or was it something in-between?  Was the mention of race or skin color clear or just implied?  Did someone “just” wonder whether Harry’s children might take after Doria instead of Diana?   We have no way of knowing.

Edited by EmCatlyn
Grammar.
  • Upvote 13
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree that they have every right to be indignant and protective about anything that belittled Meghan for being biracial or for being American. (My impression is that upper-crust Brits are, at best, often patronizing towards Americans.)  And definitely discussions about how a mixed-race child would fit in would be cause for indignation. (The question remains whether such a discussion did happen, and what was the full context.)  The problem is that their narrative doesn’t seem consistent.  How much of their troubles are exaggerated (either for attention or out of paranoia)?   As you say, we will probably never know. 

Like you, I am inclined to wonder what exactly (if anything) Harry and Meghan had discussed about her race and the race of their future children.  Did they talk about anything practical about their future life together?  Again, we will probably never know, but it’s an interesting question.

 

I think the total proven lies in that interview are around 16 now. Just a few big ones that made headlines immediately and were proven false: 

*They only wanted Archie to be a prince so he would have security.  Because otherwise it would be denied. Government officials have made it clear that security has nothing to do with titles but is given based on threat assessments. 
*He was not made a prince immediately because of race. He was not because of a rule made in 1917 before even the Queen was born and if she had desired to change that for Harry’s children she would have done it in 2012 when she changed it for William’s. In 2012, no one in the royal family had heard of Meghan Markle and Harry was still dating his string of blonde women. 
*They were secretly married in the yard three days before their wedding by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He made clear that would have been illegal (not a legal venue, no witnesses and would have meant he falsified the license issued at Windsor) and (for our FJ contingency insisting that they must have said private vows then that mean more to them) that nothing was said or done in that meeting resembling wedding vows. 
*Charles cut them off in early 2020 leaving them impoverished and homeless had Tyler Perry not generously saved them in their destitution. Charles’ financial report shows that they received millions from them in the last fiscal year. Basically a chunk of money to transition. Never mind that even Harry admitted he had his inheritance. 
*Harry was never allowed to ride a bike as a child. Google images clears that one up in five minutes  

Trusting anything they say at this point is foolish. 
 

  • Upvote 15
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s apparent by now If their lips are moving then they lie lie lie. Lying by omission counts as well. 
 

Those String of Blond women probably dipped when they saw the writing on the wall with  the  toxic unhinged paranoid laughably entitled and out of touch parts of Harry most everyone else was ignorant of. I believe Meghan has her own reasons for hooking up with him and it’s probably not being head of over heels in true love. 

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, louisa05 said:

[Summary of statements made to Oprah that have been proven false. ]
… 
*They were secretly married in the yard three days before their wedding by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He made clear that would have been illegal (not a legal venue, no witnesses and would have meant he falsified the license issued at Windsor) and (for our FJ contingency insisting that they must have said private vows then that mean more to them) that nothing was said or done in that meeting resembling wedding vows. 
….

I don’t disagree about most of what you listed, but I need to nitpick. ?  Where did you read/hear that the Archbishop of Canterbury made clear that nothing was said that resembled wedding vows?  Everything I have read said that he refused to divulge anything about what was said at the meeting where   Meghan alleged they took vows privately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t disagree about most of what you listed, but I need to nitpick. ?  Where did you read/hear that the Archbishop of Canterbury made clear that nothing was said that resembled wedding vows?  Everything I have read said that he refused to divulge anything about what was said at the meeting where   Meghan alleged they took vows privately. 

I agree - the archbishop only said that the legal marriage ceremony was the one at St. George’s, and their earlier meetings were private.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Those String of Blond women probably dipped when they saw the writing on the wall with  the  toxic unhinged paranoid laughably entitled and out of touch parts of Harry most everyone else was ignorant of. 

I definitely think Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas had a better idea of what being married into the royal family meant then Meghan did. But until Meghan came on the scene I always assumed Chelsy would be his endgame after he was finally ready to settle down.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

I definitely think Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas had a better idea of what being married into the royal family meant then Meghan did. But until Meghan came on the scene I always assumed Chelsy would be his endgame after he was finally ready to settle down.

I have been reading Battle of Brothers and was struck by this account.
 

Quote

But Cressida did complain to friends about Harry’s neurosis concerning the media. He would rant and complain about paparazzi lurking where clearly there were none. The prince, she came to feel, was a damaged and self-obsessed young man…”

 

  • Upvote 6
  • Thank You 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EmCatlyn and @QuiverFullofBooks I guess the OG poster referred to the ceremonial parts of the vows, that are said in choreography with the priest and end in a vocal declaration of marriage by the priest. That’s not the same as some private vows, which can be whatever or not at all. She literally said they were married, which they were not. If she had said “we exchanged vows in a private ceremony” everyone would have assumed they were talking of some self written stuff and very much felt married from that point forward. But I think they often say things in a way that forces them to backtrack or clarify (collaborating with the Queen - out, married before the wedding - ups no private vows, no money from dad after they left - obviously we meant the UK fiscal year, never went for a bike ride - OUTSIDE of private grounds….)It’s a pattern. It’s similar to when they make accusations and technically might tell the truth while highly implying things. Often enough they have to backtrack here as well. What I find crazy is why they don’t notice it’s not helping. The UK has turned their back in them, coming back as working royals seeks to be off the table for good, the US doesn’t seem too impressed (hello 1st Amendment). Right now, they are feeding off on almost exclusively negative coverage. They had so much time to give Archwell a great start (monthly charity highlight? Quarterly or yearly showcase of a big -ism issue, you know guest essays, interviews, how to support…….), they could have pre-produced podcast episodes…. Every mediocre influencer is able to do it. What exactly is their staff doing apart from reading online comments??????

Edited by just_ordinary
  • Upvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I have been reading Battle of Brothers and was struck by this account.
 

 

Finding Freedom also including a tidbit around Harry flying into a rage about the press when they were guests at a wedding (where it's mentioned Meghan had never seen him like that before and she was photographed trying to chat to him while he sat looking like a thundercloud). 

Considering Kate was pictured as well trying to chat to a sulky-looking Harry on a couple of occasions in public, I kind of think he's pretty exhausting to be around at times and his girlfriends had a lot lumped on their plate. 

 

  • Upvote 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he definitely doesn't seem like the easiest person to deal with. Eventually that kind of toxic behaviour gets draining on a person and they either have to leave before they get sucked down with them. 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@EmCatlyn and @QuiverFullofBooks I guess the OG poster referred to the ceremonial parts of the vows, that are said in choreography with the priest and end in a vocal declaration of marriage by the priest. That’s not the same as some private vows, which can be whatever or not at all. She literally said they were married, which they were not. If she had said “we exchanged vows in a private ceremony” everyone would have assumed they were talking of some self written stuff and very much felt married from that point forward. But I think they often say things in a way that forces them to backtrack or clarify (collaborating with the Queen - out, married before the wedding - ups no private vows, no money from dad after they left - obviously we meant the UK fiscal year, never went for a bike ride - OUTSIDE of private grounds….)It’s a pattern. It’s similar to when they make accusations and technically might tell the truth while highly implying things. Often enough they have to backtrack here as well. What I find crazy is why they don’t notice it’s not helping. The UK has turned their back in them, coming back as working royals seeks to be off the table for good, the US doesn’t seem too impressed (hello 1st Amendment). Right now, they are feeding off on almost exclusively negative coverage. They had so much time to give Archwell a great start (monthly charity highlight? Quarterly or yearly showcase of a big -ism issue, you know guest essays, interviews, how to support…….), they could have pre-produced podcast episodes…. Every mediocre influencer is able to do it. What exactly is their staff doing apart from reading online comments??????

Yeah, I never believed the stuff about the “little private wedding.”  The thing is the Archbishop can’t contradict any claim she makes about what they did when they met privately except to say that he did not perform a wedding ceremony and that they were not legally married until the official ceremony and date.  He cannot report that they did (or did not) recite private vows to each other.  He cannot reveal what they said to him or to each other because of confidentiality.  And he has made it clear that he will say no more.

I suppose if Meghan and Harry were to release the Archbishop from an obligation to keep a “confidence” about something Meghan told the world about, the Archbishop could corroborate their account.  So either M & H have chosen not to release him (because he could not corroborate?) or the Archbishop didn’t want to get caught up in their games and won’t speak even if they say it is okay.  Who knows? ??‍♀️

Some of their “massaging of the truth” seems to have a reason: they want to seem like victims or they want to seem heroic or whatever.  But I can’t figure out why Meghan would make up the story about the private wedding. It may be romantic-sounding, but it really doesn’t accomplish anything.  And it is easily disproven. 

I wouldn’t blame their staff or their publicists for M & H’s failure to tell consistent, credible stories.  I really get the feeling that M & H come up with these things spontaneously on their own and the staff has to try to fix it. ?

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I wouldn’t blame their staff or their publicists for M & H’s failure to tell consistent, credible stories.  I really get the feeling that M & H come up with these things spontaneously on their own and the staff has to try to fix it. ?

This is where I'm sort of landing with them. They're very impulsive with little thought about follow through. I can't even imagine trying to be on their PR team and managing their disasters. 

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Yeah, I never believed the stuff about the “little private wedding.”  The thing is the Archbishop can’t contradict any claim she makes about what they did when they met privately except to say that he did not perform a wedding ceremony and that they were not legally married until the official ceremony and date.  He cannot report that they did (or did not) recite private vows to each other.  He cannot reveal what they said to him or to each other because of confidentiality.  And he has made it clear that he will say no more.

I suppose if Meghan and Harry were to release the Archbishop from an obligation to keep a “confidence” about something Meghan told the world about, the Archbishop could corroborate their account.  So either M & H have chosen not to release him (because he could not corroborate?) or the Archbishop didn’t want to get caught up in their games and won’t speak even if they say it is okay.  Who knows? ??‍♀️

Some of their “massaging of the truth” seems to have a reason: they want to seem like victims or they want to seem heroic or whatever.  But I can’t figure out why Meghan would make up the story about the private wedding. It may be romantic-sounding, but it really doesn’t accomplish anything.  And it is easily disproven. 

I wouldn’t blame their staff or their publicists for M & H’s failure to tell consistent, credible stories.  I really get the feeling that M & H come up with these things spontaneously on their own and the staff has to try to fix it. ?

I think she did what many do and was very casual and flippant with her phrasing. She very well might have felt that this occasion was their true joining each other in holy matrimony. On an emotional level. Many people (the majority actually iirc) nowadays life in relationships that look exactly like a marriage but choose not to get married. They might even refer to each other as husband/wife even when they are not. It’s just a technicality, but I think running around re-defining things and then whining when people don’t understand you is stupid. It’s very much like Fundies that sometimes go to great lengths to re-define the meaning of words. Why she felt the need to let everyone know that her big ass wedding couldn’t do that for her is a question I would love to have answered. Was it a an honest slip up? Was it deliberate because obviously people would notice and it would keep them in the news for longer? Was it to underline how cold the royal environment is? Was the interview edited in a way that made her claim more poignant and she actually cleared it up but that part didn’t make the cut? 
It’s as frustrating as reassuring to see how they, even with Sunshine Sachs, are not able to produce a consistent PR strategy without getting into trouble by their own hands (or words). Frustrating because they have massive potential. Reassuring because it proofs it wasn’t the bad people at KP/BP that just didn’t help them.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I think she did what many do and was very casual and flippant with her phrasing. She very well might have felt that this occasion was their true joining each other in holy matrimony.  … <snip>
 Why she felt the need to let everyone know that her big ass wedding couldn’t do that for her is a question I would love to have answered. Was it a an honest slip up? Was it deliberate because obviously people would notice and it would keep them in the news for longer? Was it to underline how cold the royal environment is? Was the interview edited in a way that made her claim more poignant and she actually cleared it up but that part didn’t make the cut? 
It’s as frustrating as reassuring to see how they, even with Sunshine Sachs, are not able to produce a consistent PR strategy without getting into trouble by their own hands (or words). Frustrating because they have massive potential. Reassuring because it proofs it wasn’t the bad people at KP/BP that just didn’t help them.

Totally agree with the last part (“frustrating and reassuring”) but wanted to dig more into “why.”  Specifically, I don’t think there was anything “casual or flippant” about the phrasing. She very carefully articulated that she was sharing a secret.

Quote

“Three days before our wedding, we got married — no one knows that.

"We called the archbishop and we just said, look, this thing, this spectacle, is for the world, but we want our union between us," she said.

She said it was "just the two of us in our backyard with the archbishop of Canterbury." Harry added that it was "just the three of us."
NBC News

I suppose it is possible that she or Harry qualified this and said something like, “Of course they were private vows, but they were the real marriage to us,” and it was edited out. ??‍♀️ But they have not claimed this. And knowing how they jump on things that are critical of them, I think they would have (and Oprah would surely have backed them up).   

Whatever their motivation in this shading of the truth (and there really is no harm in saying that the exchange of vows in the garden under a tree was more meaningful to them than the big public wedding), what strikes me about everything they do is how it tends to blindside and put others in an awkward position.  

What they described as their “real” private wedding (led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, no less) is very much what a lot of people during the pandemic were asking Church of England priests to do and being turned down because of rules about what has to be involved in a true CoE wedding. So suddenly the CoE has to explain (again) to parishioners that the private garden wedding is not an option and why. 

While it’s on a different level, this is no different from their announcing their exit from the royals before working out the details with the palace and earlier starting to market “Sussex Royal” stuff without the Queen’s approval.   They seem to feel that if they decide something and announce it, then it becomes so.  

Why do they do it?  It seems almost like childish “magical thinking.”  

 

Edited by EmCatlyn
Fix punctuation etc.
  • Upvote 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both seem very much this is our view of the world or the occasion and if anyone doesn't fall in line, then the other person or institution is the problem.  They both come across as demanding, oblivious, and self-centered.  

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Radar Online (not the world’s most reliable source, to be sure) the preparations for the unveiling of Diana’s statue have been a source of friction between the organizers and Prince Harry.

Quote

Harry won’t show them his speech and is refusing to take part in meetings or dress rehearsals. He seems to want to just wing it. To just turn up and see what happens. They don’t even know what he is planning to wear," one insider reveals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving lurkdom temporarily to thank you all for the interesting reading here!

I am a diehard Dlisted fan and for a decade, plus, enjoyed references to Harry as “Prince Hot Ginge” (PHG) by the lead writer, a gay man with a crush on Harry. It gave the impression of H as a carefree party animal, the emotionally free-wheeling Oscar to Wills’ buttoned-up Felix. 
 

When Meghan came on the scene I got the typical, US-citizen “another Wallis Simpson” vibes.  Of course it’s not parallel as H isn’t the heir apparent, but it was, “oh, nice, he’ll be more or less settling down.  And Meghan sounds progressive.”

Oy, how things change!  Here is the only place I really follow them, and all your comments, points of view, citations and even the occasional kerfuffle are interesting, entertaining, informative - even thought-provoking!!

….ok, I’ll also read about them at Dlisted, but you all here are #1 !!! 
 

Thank you again for the good reads!!  Back to the shadow. :) 

  • Upvote 10
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

According to Radar Online (not the world’s most reliable source, to be sure) the preparations for the unveiling of Diana’s statue have been a source of friction between the organizers and Prince Harry.

 

I have a bad feeling he’s going to use it as another chance to air his grievances.  

  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Manda said:

They both seem very much this is our view of the world or the occasion and if anyone doesn't fall in line, then the other person or institution is the problem.  They both come across as demanding, oblivious, and self-centered.  

Oblivious is an understatement. They’ve both visited parts of the world where people live in extreme poverty and sat down to tell Oprah how they were nearly homeless because they were (not even really) left to survive on only an inheritance of millions of pounds. That’s a gargantuan level of self-centered oblivion. 

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 5
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much agree that H&M both say things off the cuff, without any thought as to how it comes across.  And they are both really bad at damage control, which is shocking, because I think they both think they are good at it.  Honestly, they both can be incredibly personable and charming, but they cannot handle damage control. 

As for the secret wedding: my dad's family is CofE. Harry was raised in CofE.  You know if you are raised in CofE that you can only get married in a very particular way.  The rules are in the wedding service itself.  To wit, Harry has attended countless CofE weddings.  The CofE requirements for marriage are well known in England, where Harry was raised.  No one can ever convince me that Harry was unaware that he was not married in a garden by the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The part of the interview was actually filmed a few days after the original interview, after Phillip was admitted to the hospital.  Meghan is rambling on and on, about rescue chickens, how she called the Queen that morning, and  oh! Here is something juicy, we were secretly married! That big wedding everyone saw wasn't really our wedding!  Just ignore the old man in the hospital Oprah, let's pretend we're having a secret girls talk that isn't being recorded to be broadcasted to millions.

And Meghan likely didn't have a clue that her verbal diarrhea meant that the head of the CofE was a charlatan, but Harry, right there, had to know this was problematic.  And his response . . . . . . . . he started singing "Just the two of us."  I actually think he was slightly concerned, but rather than say anything qualifying, such as "Yes, it was a great moment, it really felt like we were married"- he just mentally disengages and sings.  While Oprah tries not to step on chicken poop in thousand dollar boots. 

And I would bet $$ that later that day H&M thought they did a splendid job addressing the Phillip situation. 

That segment lives rent free in my mind.  I would have paid real money to watch the Archbishop's reaction when he learned about his secret garden wedding.  

Edited by MomJeans
typos
  • Upvote 20
  • Haha 8
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MomJeans said:

….
That segment lives rent free in my mind.  I would have paid real money to watch the Archbishop's reaction when he learned about his secret garden wedding.  

????

This deserved a laugh and nods of agreement. (Can’t find emoticon for nods. ?)

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 1
  • I Agree 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MomJeans said:

As for the secret wedding: my dad's family is CofE. Harry was raised in CofE.  You know if you are raised in CofE that you can only get married in a very particular way.  The rules are in the wedding service itself.  To wit, Harry has attended countless CofE weddings.  The CofE requirements for marriage are well known in England, where Harry was raised.  No one can ever convince me that Harry was unaware that he was not married in a garden by the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The part of the interview was actually filmed a few days after the original interview, after Phillip was admitted to the hospital.  Meghan is rambling on and on, about rescue chickens, how she called the Queen that morning, and  oh! Here is something juicy, we were secretly married! That big wedding everyone saw wasn't really our wedding!  Just ignore the old man in the hospital Oprah, let's pretend we're having a secret girls talk that isn't being recorded to be broadcasted to millions.

And Meghan likely didn't have a clue that her verbal diarrhea meant that the head of the CofE was a charlatan, but Harry, right there, had to know this was problematic.  And his response . . . . . . . . he started singing "Just the two of us."  I actually think he was slightly concerned, but rather than say anything qualifying, such as "Yes, it was a great moment, it really felt like we were married"- he just mentally disengages and sings
… 

I hadn’t realized that that part of the interview was supposed to be addressing Phillip going into the hospital.  I confess I let most of the interview run without really paying attention (boring) … the chickens really encouraged me to disengage. ? 

As for the idea that Harry probably knew better because he was raised CoE, this is the guy who apparently didn’t know that his kids would not be “princes” until Charles was king.   He seemingly didn’t know about the different Letters Patent involved. ??‍♀️  

It would not surprise me if he had no idea that a “private wedding” claim would go against CoE practices.  He may have been CoE all his life, but he doesn’t seem to think very clearly, so he may have missed that detail.  As for his realizing that the “private wedding” claim would make the Archbishop look bad, or create problems for the CoE?  That may be more thinking than Harry could manage.

What I suspect is that he was not aware that Meghan was going to come up with the “private wedding” claim.  He may have been singing to avoid speaking until he had processed the information and persuaded himself that it was not really a lie. 

The “private vows” may just have consisted of Meghan reciting a poem she wrote (to be published in her next picture book) or having an Agape moment (or both) while Harry looked at her besottedly and the Archbishop tried to keep a straight face. ?

(Just a thought.)

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • nelliebelle1197 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.