Harry & Meghan 14: The Reverse Harry - Restoring the Angevin Empire

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

As Prince of Wales, Charles used to advise the Queen or at least discuss things with her.  That was apparent in later years.  Since Charles is already in his 70s, I don't think it's odd for him to be involved in discussions.  He shouldn't get the final say.  

I think people in their 70's are quite capable of making their own decisions. 

With that said, remember, this is news that is fed to the press. This is what the Palace wants you to believe. Take it with a grain of salt. Though it makes sense that angry, bullying, assaultive William might not want his brother there.

[Jackie3]

How great that Meghan and Harry were at Ellen Degeneres brithday party/vow renewal. Sounds like a star-studded event. They have really been accepted in their community. That will be great for the kids.

[prayawaythefundie]

So Harry‘s first sex partner came out to the press. He was 16, she was 19 back then. Perception may differ in the US but it’s not that shocking to me. 

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, prayawaythefundie said:

So Harry‘s first sex partner came out to the press. He was 16, she was 19 back then. Perception may differ in the US but it’s not that shocking to me. 

Not shocking at all- from a European POV. It’s funny because the excerpt sounded as if she was at least 30. 

[prayawaythefundie]

14 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

Not shocking at all- from a European POV. It’s funny because the excerpt sounded as if she was at least 30. 

Yes, it did. Turns out she‘s actually younger than Meghan.

[Jackie3]

Hundreds of pages in the book, and people focus on this. Who cares? 

It was more than 20 years ago.

It doesn't sound ugly or abusive or scary

I don't think anyone thought Harry was a virgin when he married (if he were, that would be a cause for concern imo.)

The woman sounds like she has fond memories of Harry, and no bad thoughts about the experience.

The same seems to be true for Harry. 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Jackie3

[AmazonGrace]

Samantha Markle has asked Harry to give a deposition https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/samantha-markle-calls-prince-harry-29134140

[prayawaythefundie]

Can’t he refuse? Is marriage not a privileged relation when it comes to legitation? 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Yeah calling her an "older woman" is pretty gross especially since apparently enough people knew who he was referring to to start asking this poor woman about it.

Yucky harry. Yuck

That never needed to be in there -but that it was somebody from your own  friend group who is easily identifiable and now some random unknown actual older woman....it's just wrong.

I'm sure if this woman had gone public first harry would have trotted out his palace denials plenty fast.

Samantha Markle is just skeevy.  If she wasn't all over everywhere complaining abt Meghan then she wouldn't have been known anyway. But wow the comments on that article are crazy!

[TN-peach]

14 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Yeah calling her an "older woman" is pretty gross especially since apparently enough people knew who he was referring to to start asking this poor woman about it.

Yucky harry. Yuck

That never needed to be in there -but that it was somebody from your own  friend group who is easily identifiable and now some random unknown actual older woman....it's just wrong.

I'm sure if this woman had gone public first harry would have trotted out his palace denials plenty fast.

Samantha Markle is just skeevy.  If she wasn't all over everywhere complaining abt Meghan then she wouldn't have been known anyway. But wow the comments on that article are crazy!

I completely agree.  Because he mentioned it so many women (see Elizabeth Hurley) have had to make statements to the press that it wasn't them.  As much as he complains about the press, he doesn't seem to mind sic'ing the press on others. 

[viii]

Harry? Exaggerating? Surprise surprise. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

15 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Yeah calling her an "older woman" is pretty gross especially since apparently enough people knew who he was referring to to start asking this poor woman about it.

Yucky harry. Yuck

That never needed to be in there -but that it was somebody from your own  friend group who is easily identifiable and now some random unknown actual older woman....it's just wrong.

I think the Daily Mail article only mentioned one friend texting her about it, and she had told that friend at the time. It’s interesting that she’s now what’s called a “digger” in the UK (she does excavation work using heavy machinery). Not one of the Glossy Posse at all. At the time she was an assistant groom at Highgrove, and it seems like all of the people associated with Charles’ horses hung out on a pretty equal basis.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

When you're "in" you're a guest,  when you're "out" you're a pest.

I feel for her. Harry shitting on his actual family who also seem to shit on him, all public figures by choice (they could actually walk away and more easily than most of us) Fair enough. 

But this woman's not a public person and his disparaging story about her was so unnecessary.

Just imagine being a throw away line in some rich asshole's book so he can make a sex reference.

 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

When you're "in" you're a guest,  when you're "out" you're a pest.

I feel for her. Harry shitting on his actual family who also seem to shit on him, all public figures by choice (they could actually walk away and more easily than most of us) Fair enough. 

But this woman's not a public person and his disparaging story about her was so unnecessary.

Just imagine being a throw away line in some rich asshole's book so he can make a sex reference.

 

She came forward on her own. Laughs about it and seems to remember him fondly. Voluntarily shared her own story. 

I think there are other people to feel sorry for in the world.

If she did mind, well. .. . if you have sex with a member of the royal family, you have to expect you might get a call from the Daily Mail one day.

 

4 hours ago, TN-peach said:

I completely agree.  Because he mentioned it so many women (see Elizabeth Hurley) have had to make statements to the press that it wasn't them. 

Was someone holding a gun to their head? They could have remained silent and let the story die. Soon enough, Harry will be 50 and the press won't care at all about his lost virginity. They'll will be more interested in the shenanigans of the next generation of royals.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Jackie3

[noseybutt]

I am confused as to why she went public.

[viii]

3 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

I am confused as to why she went public.

I'm also confused. Harry made it seem like he slept with a 30+ year old woman. I don't think anyone was checking for a random horse groomer that was 2 years older than Harry. I don't think she would have been in the papers if she hadn't said anything.

[treehugger]

Eh, Harry made a few bucks off a version of that story, no reason she shouldn’t also.  It must have been bizarre to read his version as the other party to the story. He was the one to tell it first in lurid detail. It’s possible she wanted to tell her side. 
 

I’m glad she did, to be honest. I was getting really tired of their version of everything being the only one out there.  The amount of twisted crap they’ve spewed about so many people is unbelievable. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by treehugger

[viii]

I don't care that she spoke up or made money off the story. None of my business. If she starts complaining about being hounded by the press, though, that will be annoying. 

[noseybutt]

12 minutes ago, treehugger said:

Eh, Harry made a few bucks off a version of that story, no reason she shouldn’t also.  It must have been bizarre to read his version as the other party to the story. He was the one to tell it first in lurid detail. It’s possible she wanted to tell her side. 
 

I’m glad she did, to be honest. I was getting really tired of their version of everything being the only one out there.  The amount of twisted crap they’ve spewed about so many people is unbelievable. 

I have no problems with her going public and if she makes money off it, more power to her. It doesn’t jive though with it being a violation of her privacy if she came forward of her own accord. 

[treehugger]

1 minute ago, viii said:

If she starts complaining about being hounded by the press, though, that will be annoying. 

A la Harry and Meghan style? 😂

[noseybutt]

3 minutes ago, viii said:

I don't care that she spoke up or made money off the story. None of my business. If she starts complaining about being hounded by the press, though, that will be annoying. 

I think we were typing at the same time. The story he told was sufficiently vague and inaccurate that she was not identifiable. 

Just now, treehugger said:

A la Harry and Meghan style? 😂

Yes.

Edited February 6, 2023 by noseybutt

[treehugger]

I don’t know that she was the one complaining about it being a violation of privacy though. I didn’t see that in her interview. She said she was surprised he put it in his book, but she didn’t complain about it. 
 

I don’t think he needed to put it in the book, especially not the way he did. But since he did, she has every right to say her part. 

[noseybutt]

Just now, treehugger said:

I don’t know that she was the one complaining about it being a violation of privacy though. I didn’t see that in her interview. She said she was surprised he put it in his book, but she didn’t complain about it. 
 

That tracks. But posters here were insinuating. 

[viii]

1 hour ago, treehugger said:

A la Harry and Meghan style? 😂

Precisely. My patience has run thin for people like this. 

[Jackie3]

6 hours ago, viii said:

Precisely. My patience has run thin for people like this. 

You have no patience for a problem you have never experienced. That's like a man saying, "I have no patience for these women complaining about childbirth."