Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[EmCatlyn]

This is from She Knows, but it is mostly quotes from  Neil Sean.  I am not suggesting that these are reliable sources.  I only think the speculations and comments below are worth discussing/snarking about.
 

Quote

Royal expert Neil Sean said on June 15 that Markle reportedly was “upset” that she didn’t get a picture of her daughter with the Queen.

“Harry and Meghan decided to release the picture of Lilibet Diana independently for all the world to see,” Sean says, referencing the adorable birthday picture of Lilibet smiling and showing off her red curls. “They feel, according to very good sources, allegedly, that it’s unfair that they did not get the opportunity to present their daughter to the world with the monarch as they did with their son Archie.”  …

…

What seemingly is building up, allegedly, is some hostilities to our gracious monarch,” he says of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s fans, who he says were unhappy about the way Prince Harry and Markle were treated during the visit.

“It’s not about needing a picture next to the monarch, it’s really about solidifying their connection,” he adds. “If you think about it, if they don’t come back with Lilibet Diana very soon, say in the next few years – it’s taken them two years to return in full – then really will there be another opportunity for their daughter to meet the monarch?”  (Source)

 

[Jackie3]

On 6/15/2022 at 11:42 AM, prayawaythefundie said:

I assume she is a very big Harry & Meghan fan and feels they have been treated terribly by the royals (just like Diana), so everyone must know that they‘re all real monsters!!1!

I'm not for them or against them. I don't know much about them, actually.

I actually started watching Suits without realizing I was seeing Meghan Markle! My daughter pointed it out, and I was like, "oh yeah, that's Meghan!"

 

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

15 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I'm not for them or against them. I don't know much about them, actually.

I actually started watching Suits without realizing I was seeing Meghan Markle! My daughter pointed it out, and I was like, "oh yeah, that's Meghan!"

 

 

Ok. Then your passion for criticizing everything about everyone in the BRF and always defending the „other side“ is quite surprising to me. Fan bias I‘d understand and believe to have myself.

[DalmatianCat]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

This is from She Knows, but it is mostly quotes from  Neil Sean.  I am not suggesting that these are reliable sources.  I only think the speculations and comments below are worth discussing/snarking about.
 

 

My main advice to Harry and Meghan would have been “try visiting a less busy weekend” if they’d wanted more Queen time.

I get that they wanted to be there for the once-in-a-lifetime event, and the busyness gave them an excuse to avoid people they wanted to avoid, but on the flip side, expecting granny to rearrange her special weekend schedule that had been years in the making to see them was ridiculous. No one expects a bride to take time out from her wedding weekend to show up at a one year-olds birthday party. This is similar but on a much grander scale.
I think Harry, at least, was very aware of how scheduled the weekend would be for the RF and probably didn’t expect much in the way of special meetings. It’s possible that the only reason they managed to get their meeting anyway was because the Queen missed a few appearances for health reasons. A fully healthy queen may have had even less time to visit with them.

[just_ordinary]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

This is from She Knows, but it is mostly quotes from  Neil Sean.  I am not suggesting that these are reliable sources.  I only think the speculations and comments below are worth discussing/snarking about.
 

 

What exactly are they upset about ALLEGEDLY though? That they don’t have a picture with both or that they couldn’t release one as they did with Archie? Because it reads more like the latter. Why are they so keen in releasing a picture with the Queen? Just release one with them and her brother? Her grandmother? Why the Queen? 
I think we will very shortly see the next spin in their villain narrative. 
Tabloids and public - the grey suits - the family but HMTQ or Philip are not the racist - generational pain - they will either attack her directly or try another open jab at Charles and Wiliam. They need another escalation level to get the attention. And again they will have to realise people don’t care about their experience as much as they wish.

Edited June 19, 2022 by just_ordinary

[Coconut Flan]

It's a cake and eat it situation.  We don't want to do the royal dance, but we want royal perks when we want them.  

Edited June 19, 2022 by Coconut Flan

[Jackie3]

13 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Ok. Then your passion for criticizing everything about everyone in the BRF and always defending the „other side“ is quite surprising to me. Fan bias I‘d understand and believe to have myself.

Well, I question the narrative of a perfect royal family. Is that what you mean?

Like saying the Queen was a "mechanic during the war" when that clearly wasn't true. Or that George's classmates had no idea who he was. When the press or the royal family PR machines puts out a statement like that, I take a look. Kinda like fundies--is it really true the Duggar girls "wanted to sleep in one big room"? "Preferred the modest swimsuits"?

"If only the public would realize what damn hard work it is to pull a small rope." --The Windors [a rough quote]

I also think they are vastly overpaid for what they do. It's not my money, but I understand why many Brits do not like it!

I can remember when Camilla was "the most hated woman in Britain." People blamed her for disturbing the "perfect" marriage between Charles and Diana. There was so much hate against her! Now it's Meghan's turn. Neither are perfect, from what I can tell, but you can say the same thing about all humans.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Jackie3

[DalmatianCat]

Camilla gave this rare interview:

https://people.com/royals/camilla-duchess-of-cornwall-opens-up-about-marriage-to-prince-charles-in-rare-interview/

towards the end she mentions that 

"I was scrutinized for such a long time that you just have to find a way to live with it," she said. "Nobody likes to be looked at all the time and, you know, criticized…"

She continued, "But I think in the end, I sort of rise above it and get on with it. You've got to get on with life." 

I wonder if she was the one that Meghan was referring to when she mentioned that someone in the family told her “they all get bad press sometimes and just have to deal with it.”

From Meghan’s perspective (her truth) was no one in the family was helpful or understanding, but considering the decades of bad headlines Camilla got, I’m guessing Camilla’s perspective (her truth) was that this was very helpful advice she gave Meghan (if it was indeed her who gave this advice to Meghan). Whether she told Meghan this or not, it’s still good advice. 
Brief tangent that could go in the Charles and Camilla thread: it’s obvious to everyone now that Charles and Camilla were/are sole mates, but what she was willing to go through in the press in order to be with him is really incredible. I remember reading somewhere that Charles had been about a week away from publicly appearing with Camilla at an event when Princess Diana died. Because of the huge outpouring after her death, they had to wait several more years to take their relationship public.

[EmCatlyn]

21 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

[snip]

From Meghan’s perspective (her truth) was no one in the family was helpful or understanding, but considering the decades of bad headlines Camilla got, I’m guessing Camilla’s perspective (her truth) was that [no one in the family is immune from bad press and you just have to rise above it] was very helpful advice …. Whether she told Meghan this or not, it’s still good advice. 

My impression is that whether Meghan was advised to just “rise above it” or not, there is no room in “Meghan’s truth” for the idea that you endure criticism, bad press, etc. without fighting back.  I bet she responded to recommendations of dignified silence and not letting the press get to her with about as much enthusiasm as most of us have for the “keep sweet” advice that fundie girls get.

My personality is a lot closer to Meghan’s than to Camilla’s and Kate’s.  I totally understand why she would be upset by the relentlessly critical press and feel silenced when she couldn’t respond and defend herself.  At the same time, I also feel that if you take on a job that involves being a lightening rod for criticism, you shouldn’t be surprised.

This may be the biggest difference between Meghan and the other two.  Camilla and Kate knew what they were getting into.  Meghan, for some reason, did not.  In this, Meghan resembles Diana, though Diana had the excuse of being barely out of her teens while Meghan was in her 30s.

We will never know if Harry gave too rosy a picture of what their life would be or if she deceived herself or both, but I think Meghan came into the Royal Family without realizing how much she would have to adjust to and how she would hate it.  Frankly, I find that incomprehensible.

As a little kid, I once speculated that maybe I would meet Prince Charles (who is 7 years older than I) when I was grown up and, if we fell in love, I could be a princess and eventually queen. My mother’s immediate response was that she wouldn’t wish such a thing for me, that royalty had a lot of responsibilities and restrictions and too little privacy.  Now, it would have made as much sense to point out that the odds of my meeting the heir to the crown of England were slim to none, but my mother focused instead on the hardships of royalty.  I wish Doria had done the same, when Meghan was little. 😉

That being said, Meghan came into the Royal Family unprepared for what was expected of her, and I don’t blame her for being unhappy.  Stepping back as senior royals definitely made sense, and one can’t blame her, but it’s the “how” it has worked out so far that is (in my view) a problem.  

[Coconut Flan]

I find it very hard to conceive of getting married for a second time while being in the latter 30s without thoroughly investigating the situation.  It's even more astounding to me to marry into something as complex as the BRF without really looking at all the angles.  A quick internet search would reveal Harry had lost girlfriends because they didn't want the life.  

I'm not saying Meghan didn't walk in with the starry eyed view of a 20 year old.  She seems to have done so and continued it with the naming of the children.  She's also a rather narcissistic right fighter.  None of that is compatible with success as a working royal.  I expect Anne, Camilla, and Catharine all tried to give her nudges in the direction of success and were met with forms of negative responses, lies, or disbelief so quickly just rolled their eyes and gave up the lost cause and moved on.  

She left herself basically two options:  change or leave.  Between them she and Harry couldn't even manage to leave gracefully so they flounced.  Thus reinforcing the remaining members view of untrustworthy and probably immature professional victims.  

Edited June 21, 2022 by Coconut Flan

[DalmatianCat]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

That being said, Meghan came into the Royal Family unprepared for what was expected of her, and I don’t blame her for being unhappy.  Stepping back as senior royals definitely made sense, and one can’t blame her, but it’s the “how” it has worked out so far that is (in my view) a problem.  

There’s been a lot of speculation about money, deals, projects and *what* exactly Meghan and Harry have been up to since they decided to strike out on their own. I know they were given several passes on not finding their footing faster due to covid.

Then this past week I started watching Chris Hemsworth’s latest Netflix special “Spiderhead” shortly after watching his wife’s Netflix special (Interceptor). Hemsworth has also filmed the sequel to Extraction in the last year…so that’s three Netflix projects started since covid. He’s also had Marvel projects, his wife has had her modeling gigs, and they’re both active in Australian conservation charities.

Its no wonder Netflix has started pulling the plug on some of Meghan and Harry’s projects. They’re either in way over their heads or not all that interested in filmmaking. Either way, I can see how a Netflix exec could be looking at the amount of projects a blockbuster star is churning out and fill like Meghan and Harry might not be a good investment after all.

I’m wondering how close their present is to what Harry and Meghan envisioned it being. They don’t actually need to work to be comfortable the rest of their lives, so I’m curious why they keep trying when it seems so half-hearted.

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

I’m wondering how close their present is to what Harry and Meghan envisioned it being. They don’t actually need to work to be comfortable the rest of their lives, so I’m curious why they keep trying when it seems so half-hearted.

As I recall, Harry told Oprah that he was able to pay for their security only because of the money he inherited from Diana, and he complained bitterly that Charles had “cut him off.”  Either Harry himself or one of his unnamed friends also told the media that they had to get all these contracts for projects because Charles had left them without support.

How much of this is true, I don’t know, but it certainly appears that the Sussexes didn’t feel they had enough “to be comfortable the rest of their lives.”  I guess it’s all relative to what you are used to and what you expect.

[Jackie3]

6 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I find it very hard to conceive of getting married for a second time while being in the latter 30s without thoroughly investigating the situation. 

Oh, people do this all the time. They also repeat the same mistakes they made in their first marriage. 

 

6 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

My impression is that whether Meghan was advised to just “rise above it” or not, there is no room in “Meghan’s truth” for the idea that you endure criticism, bad press, etc. without fighting back.  I bet she responded to recommendations of dignified silence and not letting the press get to her with about as much enthusiasm as most of us have for the “keep sweet” advice that fundie girls get.

 

I really don't see why Meghan should keep sweet if she doesn't want to. Why? Because that's the way it's always been done? That's a pretty bad reason. I'm not of fan of silencing people. 

There's so little upset about the racism in the palace! Doesn't get a mention. No one seems upset about that at all--just another thing Megan was supposed to put up and shut up about. I don't get how people can staunchly support BLM (as I do) but-- at the same time-- expect Megan Markle to tolerate racism.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

There's so little upset about the racism in the palace! Doesn't get a mention.

How are people supposed to discuss possible racism in the palace when there is basically no information to go on? There has been racist press coverage and it has been mentioned but all we got on the palace was the very vague accusation about how there supposedly was a conversation about Archie‘s skin colour before his birth in that Oprah interview. We don‘t know who said what to whom or what questions were asked. Because the Sussexes chose not to say.
 

The palace‘s response was „recollections may vary“ (which is quite a hint knowing their usual communication style) and they‘ll look into it. Frankly, since other statements Harry & Meghan made on that interview were falsified (allegedly being legally married days before their public wedding for example), they do have credibility issues in my book and staying vague on this matter doesn‘t help. 

[tabitha2]

Duh.They were “mean” to a governess 90 years ago… even gave her a house without curtains These tyrannical brutes are capable of anything!   Next she will be saying they are teaching George to throw darts at the haggard oppressed staff in  dungeons of the hundreds of grand castles they own. 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I really don't see why Meghan should keep sweet if she doesn't want to. Why? Because that's the way it's always been done? That's a pretty bad reason. I'm not of fan of silencing people. 

There's so little upset about the racism in the palace! Doesn't get a mention. No one seems upset about that at all--just another thing Megan was supposed to put up and shut up about. I don't get how people can staunchly support BLM (as I do) but-- at the same time-- expect Megan Markle to tolerate racism.

I didn’t suggest Meghan should “keep sweet.”  My point was precisely that what was probably well-meant advice sounded to her as the equivalent of “keep sweet.”

As for the racism, I am not saying it wasn’t there, because racism is everywhere, but there really isn’t anything specific to discuss. Meghan may have experienced racism, or she may have interpreted other things as racism when it was really anti-Americanism, or classism, or sexism, or just that she rubbed some people the wrong way.  We don’t have anything specific to go on.

Really, what matters is that Meghan didn’t fit in.  I wouldn’t have fit in either, nor would most of us reading this posts.  I don’t blame her for wanting to get out.  I blame her for acting as though she is a victim.

[just_ordinary]

Their biggest problem is that their statements and narratives change so much and they don’t get why people think they lie left and right. 
Either you had sushi as a three year old regularly OR you grew up poor. 
You are married or you are not. 
Obviously it’s completely possible to live relatively poor with your single parent while your other parent treats you to certain luxuries. 
You can also argue the big rehearsal ceremony felt much more like getting married than the actual day. Less pressure, more intimate. No big change apart from dress and signatures. So emotionally she very well might have felt married, that’s not how she chose to tell us about it though.
But they don’t communicate in those soft areas.
They always come up with such extremes that even the slightest deviation from their narrative reads as almost opposite to what they said before. 

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I didn’t suggest Meghan should “keep sweet.”  My point was precisely that what was probably well-meant advice sounded to her as the equivalent of “keep sweet.”

As for the racism, I am not saying it wasn’t there, because racism is everywhere, but there really isn’t anything specific to discuss. Meghan may have experienced racism, or she may have interpreted other things as racism when it was really anti-Americanism, or classism, or sexism, or just that she rubbed some people the wrong way.  We don’t have anything specific to go on.

Really, what matters is that Meghan didn’t fit in.  I wouldn’t have fit in either, nor would most of us reading this posts.  I don’t blame her for wanting to get out.  I blame her for acting as though she is a victim.

Especially Anti-Americanism has been a big thing after Iraq and it’s aftermath. We love to feel superior against the old Super Power. You see it on many levels. We feel superior about driving, food (ingredients, manufacturing, portion size, nutritional value…), culture, mass shootings, racism (I mean we have our own but it’s often not as obvious so we feel better), employee rights, environmental mindset, clothing standards (no yoga pants are not normal daywear if you are not a slob), table manners, volume, swear words, language (Oxford against American English)……. 

And no - having been the big Hero in WWII for Europe is not giving any brownie points anymore. Politically, the USA is widely seen as opportunistic and always happy to support or start a coup somewhere else. It has been pretty popular to say that the US is not much better than Russia or even China.
And I do think it had reached even the upper echelons of politics. The vote against TTIP (which was a good call though in my opinion), the vote for closer work in the energy sector with Russia….well that backfired spectacularly. 

That’s not to say we actually are superior in those sectors. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes it’s just preferences/culture/tradition. But we love to use the USA to measure against and to come out in top. I am sure M experienced a lot of patronising behaviour because of it. But, as she started a job to represent the UK it’s also normal that it was expected to see her assimilate to a certain extent. And I am sure lots of people knew it was an open firing field for this fact alone.

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Especially Anti-Americanism has been a big thing after Iraq and it’s aftermath. We love to feel superior against the old Super Power. You see it on many levels. We feel superior about driving, food (ingredients, manufacturing, portion size, nutritional value…), culture, mass shootings, racism (I mean we have our own but it’s often not as obvious so we feel better), employee rights, environmental mindset, clothing standards (no yoga pants are not normal daywear if you are not a slob), table manners, volume, swear words, language (Oxford against American English)……. 

And no - having been the big Hero in WWII for Europe is not giving any brownie points anymore. Politically, the USA is widely seen as opportunistic and always happy to support or start a coup somewhere else. It has been pretty popular to say that the US is not much better than Russia or even China.
And I do think it had reached even the upper echelons of politics. The vote against TTIP (which was a good call though in my opinion), the vote for closer work in the energy sector with Russia….well that backfired spectacularly. 

That’s not to say we actually are superior in those sectors. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes it’s just preferences/culture/tradition. But we love to use the USA to measure against and to come out in top. I am sure M experienced a lot of patronising behaviour because of it. But, as she started a job to represent the UK it’s also normal that it was expected to see her assimilate to a certain extent. And I am sure lots of people knew it was an open firing field for this fact alone.

In my experience, people “love to hate” the USA. It’s hardly new. The US is so big and has so much power that it is inevitable it will be a target of criticism.  Politics aside, each country tends to feel its customs are overall superior to those of other countries. 

Meghan’s problems in the UK were probably caused by a combination of things, but her very-American vision of the world probably rubbed some people the wrong way. She seems to have had trouble dealing with employees, and this may be because she had no experience or understanding of the culture that royal staff formed a part of.  In this, Diana had an advantage over Meghan because she came from more or less the same world as the RF

I tend to take racism very seriously, but I always take accusations of racism with a grain of salt because I know they sometimes rise from an error of perception. As with sexism, there is a tendency to try to explain everything based on the bias or alleged prejudice.  Sometimes it is justified.  Sometimes it is not. 

The thing that gets me about Meghan is that she seems not to have understood what she was getting into.  Her complaints (and the complaints of others on her behalf) suggest the inability to see the other side of an issue or experience.

Instead of saying, “Royal customs were difficult to follow,” her attitude is, “Royal customs that I had difficulty with are all ridiculous.”  Instead of recognizing that she might need to modulate her tone and adjust her manner in dealing with subordinates, she complains that they are incompetent and biased against her. If the Royal Family didn’t treat her the way she wanted to be treated, it’s because they are racist.

I do feel for her, and I suspect I’d be more comfortable in her company than trying to hang out with Camilla (who is my generation) or Kate (who is my children’s generation, as is Meghan).  However, I agree that, given that she was supposed to represent the UK, she seems not to have had the best attitude 

 

[anjulibai]

Prince Michael of Kent's wife felt comfortable enough to wear a blackamore broach to a party where Meghan was being introduced to the wider family at the tme. 

Even if Princess Michael is on the extreme end of racist sentiment within the Royal family, that she was that comfortable says lot about how racism is tolerated within the Royal Family.

In my experience, white people will perform racist microagressions that other white people either refuse to recognize or they just make excuses about, and I can easily see that happening in the Royal family. Hell, excuses were made for Princess Michael. 

We're aware of some of the overt racist crap Meghan dealt with, both from the press and from the some members of the Royal Family, there does not seem a doubt to me that she dealt with a lot of other shit that's not been mentioned. 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, anjulibai said:

We're aware of some of the overt racist crap Meghan dealt with, both from the press and from the some members of the Royal Family, there does not seem a doubt to me that she dealt with a lot of other shit that's not been mentioned. 

Of course she did. I doubt we know about every micro aggression she encountered.

[prayawaythefundie]

2 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Prince Michael of Kent's wife felt comfortable enough to wear a blackamore broach to a party where Meghan was being introduced to the wider family at the tme.

Interesting, thank you. I had to look up what a blackamoor brooch is.
 

While there is racism in every culture, it is expressed, recognized and dealt with differently. Therefor my honest question: What would an acceptable reaction from me as a family member at a party be in the UK/US? My german cultured instinct would be to adress the wearer of said brooch quietly and ask them to remove it immediately. That may be too mild a reaction from a UK/US culture point of view.

I admit that I would straight away openly ask a person to leave if they entered the room wearing a swastika, so there are different levels of sensitivity that are cultural.

Edited June 22, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

 

 

 

I don't know what to say about a person who downvotes a discussion of racism.

A Black woman enters a prominent all-white family and encounters constant criticism and outward animosity. She reports incidents of racism. It seems clear some royal staffers are concerned about how a Black child would look in family photos of this Germanic family.  I don't think looking away from racism is the best idea. 

Princess Michael would probably downvote this discussion too.

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

Never mind…

Edited June 22, 2022 by tabitha2

[prayawaythefundie]

16 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Interesting. Why is prejudice against Jews different than prejudice against Blacks? Or why should it be handled differently? I mean, I think both responses are correct, I just don't understand why you'd be more outspoken in one case. 

You might want to start reading more carefully as this is not the first time you are twisting someone’s words here and people could begin to think you’re doing it on purpose. 

I‘m not saying they are inherently different or should be handled differently. My question came from (self) observation that there are different levels of sensitivity that are influenced by the culture one was brought up with.
 

Just like I will never know from an insider‘s point of view what it is like to be  brought up in modern UK/US society that is concious on slavery & systemic racism towards POC, you will never know what it is like to be brought up in holocaust concious Germany. There are different codes of behaviour in cultures that can only be learned by living there for a long time  and I think it would be naive to say there are not.

Edited June 22, 2022 by prayawaythefundie