Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

So Megan felt free to be demanding (or interpreted as bullying) without taking ownership and also offended at a remark reported to her second or third hand without questioning?  Seems she wants to always be right and also the victim.  That's how I keep seeing her actions.

Maybe. It’s a lot of speculating and interpreting that’s for sure. We have actually very very few hard facts about the Royals and H&M and tons of subjective assumptions more or less based on hard facts and looking back at previous actions/claims. 
I don’t know if Meghan is a real bully or if it was a misunderstanding that could have been cleared up or if nothing happened at all. There has been a mail raising concerns about her behaviour to staff. If it was justifiable or would have dissolved into nothing if someone had looked into it I can’t say. I also don’t just believe someone claiming they never bullied and they “would always be the first to apologise”. That’s me though, others might always believe such claims just because. My bet is on a situation that could have blown over if everyone would have talked it out. Meghan and her staff coming up with a way on how to work together more comfortably or maybe the staff specifying that they are actually fine with how things are.

H&M might say the hard truth about all of this. I don’t outright believe them because they have shown a very (sloppy) crafty way of trying to be sneaky with words and changing perspective/narrative. It’s often not outright lying but so vague that they can always claim they were misunderstood or didn’t mean it exactly like this or that (the wedding three days prior- oh it just felt as if we were already married because it was such an intimate special moment…, her different perspectives when talking about her childhood, the different ways she talks about her father, Harry’s selective way of presenting stuff - he must have completely forgotten about the years of therapy he had and that he was part of a big mental Health campaign in 2016). All those vagueness have made me extremely wary about everything that comes out if their mouths because the second you follow their claims one step further it stops adding up.

I mean, I won’t dismiss the possibility that it could very well be the RF is not just showing the expected unconscious racial bias the vast majority deals with but is an outright racist family and happily aware. I just don’t see enough evidence through everything to come to this conclusion (like the whole Archie isn’t a Prince because of his possible colouring and therefore is left without security basically in danger for his life, completely dismissing that he would have always only become a Prince with a King Charles, being a Prince doesn’t give him more protection automatically and that the chances that the spare children won’t be Princes/Princesses anymore had been going up anyway as the RF is called do slim down for decades).

Edited November 29, 2021 by just_ordinary

[WiseGirl]

You've got to be kidding me.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/prince-harry-felt-erased-in-queen-elizabeth-iis-2019-holiday-address/

"I think that was a hurtful [for him to see]. A friend of Harry’s told me that he felt that he was being erased in a sense from the family,” the Game of Crowns author told Us. “And it was right after that, that they made their [decision to leave the U.K.]..."

Seriously? Privileged boy throws a fit, sells family out, and then gets his feelings hurt when the family picture isn't by the queen? If this is a ploy for public support...or whatever...what a failure. As someone posted earlier it is really all about them.

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

You've got to be kidding me.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/prince-harry-felt-erased-in-queen-elizabeth-iis-2019-holiday-address/

"I think that was a hurtful [for him to see]. A friend of Harry’s told me that he felt that he was being erased in a sense from the family,” the Game of Crowns author told Us. “And it was right after that, that they made their [decision to leave the U.K.]..."

Seriously? Privileged boy throws a fit, sells family out, and then gets his feelings hurt when the family picture isn't by the queen? If this is a ploy for public support...or whatever...what a failure. As someone posted earlier it is really all about them.

Who knows if this „friend“ is actually a friend or even exists. That’s something we have to remember of all those sources. And if the person exits - have they really first hand information or are also only making assumptions. Is it a real quote or what the source made out of a conversation?

But it fits into a pattern of things H felt were a snub or unfair. Just like when he (allegedly) felt left out when she did the video/photo shoot with her three heirs. 

I mean I could see this “ignoring his existence” actually going on- because (1) they don’t exist in the professional realm anymore. It’s bad that professional and personal is so deeply interwoven here. But when it was made clear they could only be in or out of the job, they (unhappily) chose out. And (2) they attacked the family on a very personal level. I can absolutely see why some felt hurt and why HMTQ maybe sent them a signal (I mean no one knows why she chooses those pictures abs what she wants to tell us really. It’s educated guessing).

H&M really need to gag their friends though. I have never seen such a leaky “friends group” for royals or celebrities alike. And it feels pretty self serving a lot if the times. To get publicity (and maybe money) because you can talk about them. I wouldn’t feel as if I could let my guard down around such people.

On the other hand, it could be another “poor me” PR play. It’s strange. M seems so have realised the whole endless talking about the RF is not helpful at all. She tries to create her own importance and uses the title as a booster (it’s completely lacking but still). H still has not been able to come up with ANYTHING that is not tied to his royal past. Even if he had the chance to transform things he needs to put a massive neon sign up. The military event? One out of those four medals/decorations was actually for military service. The other three were shiny vanity gifts by granny pretty much unrelated. That was his chance to showcase his own personal accomplishments in this area. But no, he rather parades around all blinged up. This guy has such a massive chip on his shoulder- you do wonder why goes therapist(s) haven’t helped him there?

Edited December 2, 2021 by just_ordinary

[louisa05]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Who knows if this „friend“ is actually a friend or even exists. That’s something we have to remember of all those sources. And if the person exits - have they really first hand information or are also only making assumptions. Is it a real quote or what the source made out of a conversation?

But it fits into a pattern of things H felt were a snub or unfair. Just like when he (allegedly) felt left out when she did the video/photo shoot with her three heirs. 

I mean I could see this “ignoring his existence” actually going on- because (1) they don’t exist in the professional realm anymore. It’s bad that professional and personal is so deeply interwoven here. But when it was made clear they could only be in or out of the job, they (unhappily) chose out. And (2) they attacked the family on a very personal level. I can absolutely see why some felt hurt and why HMTQ maybe sent them a signal (I mean no one knows why she chooses those pictures abs what she wants to tell us really. It’s educated guessing).

H&M really need to gag their friends though. I have never seen such a leaky “friends group” for royals or celebrities alike. And it feels pretty self serving a lot if the times. To get publicity (and maybe money) because you can talk about them. I wouldn’t feel as if I could let my guard down around such people.

On the other hand, it could be another “poor me” PR play. It’s strange. M seems so have realised the whole endless talking about the RF is not helpful at all. She tries to create her own importance and uses the title as a booster (it’s completely lacking but still). H still has not been able to come up with ANYTHING that is not tied to his royal past. Even if he had the chance to transform things he needs to put a massive neon sign up. The military event? One out of those four medals/decorations was actually for military service. The other three were shiny vanity gifts by granny pretty much unrelated. That was his chance to showcase his own personal accomplishments in this area. But no, he rather parades around all blinged up. This guy has such a massive chip on his shoulder- you do wonder why goes therapist(s) haven’t helped him there?

Or it could be that the generational depictions of the monarch and direct heirs go back centuries and it quite literally has nothing to do with leaving out anyone else. None of his cousins were pictured either. None of them were in the video. None of their children have titles. Frankly, the problem is H&M think everything is or should be about them   It’s not. Most of us figure that out before middle age   

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I was thinking about you guys this morning when my daughter told me she selected the restaurant for her wedding reception, it's English pub food and plan options for groups are named after the BRF!

We will likely be going with the Diana option.  Anyway, soon as she sent me the menu I immediately thought of you all.  (I wonder if they change their names every time the line of succession changes?)

Can't wait to catch up on this thread, need some trivial snark as a pallet cleanser from the Josh stuff.  Have been keeping up with the goings on via River on YouTube,  I don't always agree with him but he's deliciously snarky.

[just_ordinary]

@HerNameIsBuffy 🤣 honestly I love it!!!! Can your daughter invite me? Pretty please. But note - as a snobby European I will not turn up to any showers and just gift money. I might also just wear a dress I have worn tons of times before. But apart from that I am a pleasant guest, I promise 😉

[viii]

12 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

Seriously? Privileged boy throws a fit, sells family out, and then gets his feelings hurt when the family picture isn't by the queen? If this is a ploy for public support...or whatever...what a failure. As someone posted earlier it is really all about them.

To be fair, for December 2019, Harry hadn't "thrown his fit and sold his family out" just yet. They didn't leave until January 2020 and that was probably one of the last straws in his mind. 

[WiseGirl]

20 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

trivial snark as a pallet cleanser from the Josh stuff. 

This, 1000 times this. 

Congratulations to your daughter. Love that they are going with a pub.

[MamaJunebug]

Longtime lurker, first(?)time poster: what do you all think about her duchessness’s recent victory?

https://pagesix.com/2021/12/02/meghan-markle-wins-suit-over-publication-of-private-letter/?_ga=2.203866192.1744456482.1638723871-1507397489.1638723871

[just_ordinary]

It was pretty obvious she would win. ANL printed too much of her letter. Full stop. The law can be very precise and her case was well set up (those lawyers were worth their money). I am not surprised. 
BUT the whole debacle is a pretty shallow “win”. She had to admit, basically lying to court (and to the public when they specifically denied any involvement in the book) which makes them pretty questionable. Especially with the quoted passages from their conversations that paints them in a pretty manipulative light. 
I don’t know how they can really recover from this. Maybe if we never hear about the alleged bullying investigation again? Which might happen, because the BRF would have to explain why the accusations weren’t properly documented and followed up.
I also don’t think ANL ever thought they could win. But they used their appeal to make a point. The whole book involvement had never any significance for her case. 

[Topaz]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-raab-privacy-meghan-markle-b1970116.html
 

The government wants to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. No, not the media publishing private letters, but them getting into trouble for it. Apparently keeping private letters private is entirely too much privacy for the country to put up with.

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, Topaz said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-raab-privacy-meghan-markle-b1970116.html
 

The government wants to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. No, not the media publishing private letters, but them getting into trouble for it. Apparently keeping private letters private is entirely too much privacy for the country to put up with.

You do wonder if they have nothing better to do…. Well maybe Peppa Pig World is closer over the winter season. 
On the other hand, if the UK feels they need to update the law, to make it more obvious what is acceptable in terms of publishing frok private letters and what not, that’s their prerogative. 

[Karma]

They’ve released their Christmas photo - including finally a photo of Lilibet. I know it’s their choice, but I don’t get the whole refusing to let her be seen, then releasing a photo anyway. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Karma
Riffle

[tabitha2]

They want to be in control of when where and how their children are seen. Fair enough.  I also think because photos like this, particularly of the baby, are so coveted and they can get huge amounts of money selling them  it’s a pragmatic decision to dole them out sparingly.  Can’t say as I would do different honestly.  Anyway they are cuties and Archie has a nice head of auburn hair on him.

[louisa05]

The caption, though. 
STFU, Meghan & Harry. 

[nokidsmom]

I get wanting to be in control of where and when the children are seen.  It is their right as parents and any parent not just high profile ones.   But given their track record of saying they want privacy then going public with something then complaining of not having privacy, rinse, repeat does make anything they release look contrived at best. 

[nausicaa]

38 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

The caption, though. 
STFU, Meghan & Harry. 

Yeah, donating on the card recipients' behalf is weird. If it's not a one to one donation under a specific person's name, you didn't donate on anyone's behalf. You just donated. (And wanted to publicize it...)

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

The caption, though. 
STFU, Meghan & Harry. 

What caption? (What am I missing?)

1 hour ago, nokidsmom said:

I get wanting to be in control of where and when the children are seen.  It is their right as parents and any parent not just high profile ones.   But given their track record of saying they want privacy then going public with something then complaining of not having privacy, rinse, repeat does make anything they release look contrived at best. 

I don’t know.  Everyone shares Xmas photos.  I think it was silly not to share a baby picture sooner since the kid is totally unaware of the publicity and they would still control the “when.”  It really is about emphasizing their uniqueness more than anything else.

[louisa05]

@EmCatlyn Behold: 

Spoiler

 

Only couples with two (or presumably more, but maybe not given their previous pontifications on the topic) children are a family. Along with her "one child is a hobby" thing on Ellen, she's set quite a nice sentiment for Archie when he's old enough to understand it. And insulted and potentially hurt people who have no children or only one child for reasons outside their control, particularly infertility. "You don't have a family! Merry Christmas from the Sussexes"

[EmCatlyn]

21 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

@EmCatlyn Behold: 

  Hide contents

 

Only couples with two (or presumably more, but maybe not given their previous pontifications on the topic) children are a family. Along with her "one child is a hobby" thing on Ellen, she's set quite a nice sentiment for Archie when he's old enough to understand it. And insulted and potentially hurt people who have no children or only one child for reasons outside their control, particularly infertility. "You don't have a family! Merry Christmas from the Sussexes"

For someone who is often portrayed as calculating and manipulative, she really has no sense of how she comes across!  Her mother had only one child.  Does she feel that she and her mother were not a family?  That she was just a “hobby” herself?

I don’t think Archie will necessarily take it as devaluing him.  If he feels loved in other ways, he will just accept that his parents believe that two kids is “just right.”

However, the suggestion that people who don’t/ can’t have more than one kid are somehow “amateurs” with “incomplete” families is offensive to me. (And I had the requisite two.)

As for announcing, “we gave lots of money” to “unspecified groups” representing this or that injustice —- please!  Bragging about giving money is so crass, even if you don’t specify the amounts.

[tabitha2]

They simply can’t let a sweet family photo with lovely happy children and a Christmas greeting suffice. Everything is a selling point, a campaign or horn tooting  and more often than not it doesn’t make them look very good.But Sussex gonna Sussex  anyway Archie is a lovely child and the babe is adorable! Eager to see whose side they resemble more in a few years.

[just_ordinary]

On 12/23/2021 at 5:55 PM, nokidsmom said:

I get wanting to be in control of where and when the children are seen.  It is their right as parents and any parent not just high profile ones.   But given their track record of saying they want privacy then going public with something then complaining of not having privacy, rinse, repeat does make anything they release look contrived at best. 

Absolutely. And it is a lovely photograph indeed.

My problem is as such- why did they release it on behalf of their charity/business (whatever it is really)? That makes no sense at all and - to me- is highly unprofessional. Either release a photo to your Fans, as that is what it was about. Or sent it privately to charities you support (not through Archwell). First would look strange, because who does that (apart from the stuffy racist royals or trashy celebs?). Second might not bring the wanted attention (or would have though, but why sent a card in the first place? I wouldn’t sent a private Christmas card to people I already give money.). With their new set up, they gave manoeuvred themselves in a corner where they need to really think stuff like that’s through. They brought that on themselves though.
I find it generally sad, that those children don’t get the privilege of privacy. They deserve that, and H&M actually have the option to make it happen. They choose to put them out there though. And it looks often as if it happens, just when the attention shifts away from them.

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Absolutely. And it is a lovely photograph indeed.

My problem is as such- why did they release it on behalf of their charity/business (whatever it is really)? That makes no sense at all and - to me- is highly unprofessional. Either release a photo to your Fans, as that is what it was about. Or sent it privately to charities you support (not through Archwell). First would look strange, because who does that (apart from the stuffy racist royals or trashy celebs?). Second might not bring the wanted attention (or would have though, but why sent a card in the first place? I wouldn’t sent a private Christmas card to people I already give money.). With their new set up, they gave manoeuvred themselves in a corner where they need to really think stuff like that’s through. They brought that on themselves though.
I find it generally sad, that those children don’t get the privilege of privacy. They deserve that, and H&M actually have the option to make it happen. They choose to put them out there though. And it looks often as if it happens, just when the attention shifts away from them.

I don’t think there is any harm to the kids in appearing in a Christmas card or an occasional picture with their parents during the year.  A lot of people in public life keep their children’s lives private without a total blackout on pictures.  So long as the kids aren’t being harassed by the press or made to “perform nicely” for the cameras, if celebrity parents want to share a couple of pictures a year to show off their kids, I take it as understandable parental pride.

Where I question the actions of the Sussexes is when they mix the “look at our lovely family”  with “we are such charitable woke people.”  It’s at best bragging, at worst, self-promotion. 

Seems to me they could have posted the picture with a plain “Merry Christmas from the Sussexes” and then done a separate “Merry Christmas” post from their organization encouraging others to learn more about their favorite charities and projects.  No need to say they are donating or have donated anything.  (“Donating in your name,” is a private thing.  The whole point of “I donated in your name” is that the person in whose name you donated gets the credit—not you.)

What this looks like to me is a very awkward effort to claim a position as philanthropists.  It is part of their message that they can “live a life of service” outside the framework of “royal service.”  It makes me think that neither of them understands true “service” or philanthropy.  🤷‍♀️

[Mama Mia]

I don’t really get the problem with the photo, or caption, or donations? It’s a cute family photo. There seem to be lots of parents - mostly famous, but some just regular - who will post a photo of their children once a year or so- but that’s it. In the case of famous people, it probably helps keep paparazzi at least a little mollified. 
 

To me - the caption is a little clumsily worded - but just means THEIR family is complete. Like “here we are, mom, dad, brother, sister, our own little happy family” nothing more or less. They’d already said they wanted two kids.

Donating some money in the name of each person or entity they sent a card to doesn’t seem any different than regular people giving a Heifer or UNICEF donation. 
 

They certainly seem annoying, but really not more than lots of people with money.
 

 

[louisa05]

12 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

I don’t really get the problem with the photo, or caption, or donations? It’s a cute family photo. There seem to be lots of parents - mostly famous, but some just regular - who will post a photo of their children once a year or so- but that’s it. In the case of famous people, it probably helps keep paparazzi at least a little mollified. 
 

To me - the caption is a little clumsily worded - but just means THEIR family is complete. Like “here we are, mom, dad, brother, sister, our own little happy family” nothing more or less. They’d already said they wanted two kids.

Donating some money in the name of each person or entity they sent a card to doesn’t seem any different than regular people giving a Heifer or UNICEF donation. 
 

They certainly seem annoying, but really not more than lots of people with money.
 

 

1– They constantly play games with the whole photos thing. Feet. Backs. Harry cries over privacy because the press is out to kill them. They aren’t going to “hand over their children” as the other BRF members allegedly do, then there’s an entire video ( way more exposure than a birthday photo taken by their mother). Then the whole song and dance again followed by publicly releasing a family photo. 
2– This is the second time Meghan has   dissed on people having only children. If they meant that Lili completed their family, they could have said that. They did not. Words have meaning and we are not obligated to read other meanings into what people say or write. For whatever reason, Meghan seems to think there is something inot enough to make a family about an only child. Perhaps she was unhappy as her mother’s only child. That’s fine if that’s her experience, but she doesn’t need to project it on her first child or everyone else. 
3–Since they released this in the manner that the BRF does, this is their faux royal card. It is likely it is being sent to everyone who sent them correspondence through the year. They absolutely did not make donations in the names of everyone this card was sent to. They, in fact, did not make any personal donations at all. The foundation established in their name did so. With donations made by others. 

Edited December 27, 2021 by louisa05
Typo