In a few days will you watch Megan, Harry, and Oprah?

[MaisOuiMadame]

And I can see a British audience see if from this perspective too. I wonder how other countries see it?

And yeah, I am definitely seeing it as an American. You could not pay me enough to live that life. It's Covid for the rest of her life. Forget it. They can keep the money, the life, the "luxury". And from the perspective of the current times, I can see people saying that they're not actually "whining" but "being authentic". They're speaking up and exposing stuff. It's all a matter of perspective.

I'm German living in France and the echo in my circle is more in line with my own thoughts above ... We're all completely with your assessment, though, that I'd not want that life and I'd most definitely not want that for my child.

Many GF s of Harry's (that blonde girl comes to mind) did see the job for what it was apparently and RAN. Can't blame them....

 

[missy]

OK so we ended up watching last night. We TIVOd it just in case and Greg said he didn't mind watching so we did.

Thoughts.

No surprises re the racism. It exists everywhere and unless one is part of the discriminated group one may not fully see it but yes it exists everywhere. I found Oprah's shock at the racism to be disingenuous. It wasn't shocking to me and I cannot believe it was shocking to her.

H and M are extremely privileged. Yes. And do I believe M didn't know what she was getting into with the Royal family? Not entirely. I don't believe everything she said and I don't believe she didn't read and research about the Royal family before marrying Harry. But having said that it is abhorrent they refused to let her get psychiatric help when she needed it. Inexcusable.

So yes I had empathy/sympathy for what she went through. She asked for help and was denied. Not OK. And I was SMH that Harry didn't speak up to his family and insist on getting her help. I would say I was disappointed but I have no expectations from him so I cannot be disappointed per se. He strikes me as not that strong or bright but that might not be fair. I find him boring and not interesting. I am being completely honest so please don't skewer me for my thoughts. They are my thoughts. I just know he didn't take care of his wife when she needed help. And yes he eventually got her out of that unhealthy situation but it took too long. IMO.

Meghan is certainly better off in America now. But IMO Harry is going to pay the price. Separated from his family and all he knows. In the long run I feel they are both better off but in the short term it is H who is paying a more dear price.

As an American we cannot really "get" what it is to be part of the Royal family. Most (all?) of us would hate that kind of life. Lack of freedom. Lack of autonomy. Following rules and having no say in what one can and cannot do. It is unfathomable to us as Americans.

My view of H and M hasn't changed much. I really don't know anything about her life before nor am I interested. I watched because this thread alerted me and I wanted to see what the brouhaha was about. I hope they enjoy being in America and can lead a good life here and do some good too.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

OK so we ended up watching last night. We TIVOd it just in case and Greg said he didn't mind watching so we did.

Thoughts.

No surprises re the racism. It exists everywhere and unless one is part of the discriminated group one may not fully see it but yes it exists everywhere. I found Oprah's shock at the racism to be disingenuous. It wasn't shocking to me and I cannot believe it was shocking to her.

H and M are extremely privileged. Yes. And do I believe M didn't know what she was getting into with the Royal family? Not entirely. I don't believe everything she said and I don't believe she didn't read and research about the Royal family before marrying Harry. But having said that it is abhorrent they refused to let her get psychiatric help when she needed it. Inexcusable.

So yes I had empathy/sympathy for what she went through. She asked for help and was denied. Not OK. And I was SMH that Harry didn't speak up to his family and insist on getting her help. I would say I was disappointed but I have no expectations from him so I cannot be disappointed per se. He strikes me as not that strong or bright but that might not be fair. I find him boring and not interesting. I am being completely honest so please don't skewer me for my thoughts. They are my thoughts. I just know he didn't take care of his wife when she needed help. And yes he eventually got her out of that unhealthy situation but it took too long. IMO.

Meghan is certainly better off in America now. But IMO Harry is going to pay the price. Separated from his family and all he knows. In the long run I feel they are both better off but in the short term it is H who is paying a more dear price.

As an American we cannot really "get" what it is to be part of the Royal family. Most (all?) of us would hate that kind of life. Lack of freedom. Lack of autonomy. Following rules and having no say in what one can and cannot do. It is unfathomable to us as Americans.

My view of H and M hasn't changed much. I really don't know anything about her life before nor am I interested. I watched because this thread alerted me and I wanted to see what the brouhaha was about. I hope they enjoy being in America and can lead a good life here and do some good too.

Ha, Missy, so funny it's nearly exactly what my DH said about Harry, he turned to me and said : oh, he's not exactly all that bright, is he? Didn't seem to have been all that helpful to his wife?


We actually loled at the over - acted reaction of Oprah...

Plus one on all your other points, just from a more European angle where the individual counts a tad less anyways (no judgement, it has advantages and disadvantages, it's a different approach to the concept of society)

 

[missy]

Ha, Missy, so funny it's nearly exactly what my DH said about Harry, he turned to me and said : oh, he's not exactly all that bright, is he? Didn't seem to have been all that helpful to his wife?


We actually loled at the over - acted reaction of Oprah...

Plus one on all your other points, just from a more European angle where the individual counts a tad less anyways (no judgement, it has advantages and disadvantages, it's a different approach to the concept of society)

Hi @kipari thanks. I was hesitant to share my thoughts (didn’t want to offend) but decided to go ahead. I meant/mean no disrespect and as I wrote it’s from my (American) perspective which is such a different perspective and I only speak for myself of course.

I do care about others. I’m not just for myself. That’s not who I am. It’s one extreme or the other it seems comparing the royals to (what people perceive us to be) Americans in general. I’m more in between. As I suspect most people all over the world are.

Americans come from a different perspective but we aren’t all like those you’ve seen crying about their “rights” vs safety of others. That, IMO, is as foreign to me as the other extreme.

I firmly believe the best way to live life is live and let live but never turn an eye away from injustice. That’s never ok. We are in the world together and we stand stronger when we help others. We don’t diminish, rather we enhance the human experience when we care and help others. Period.

 

[lissyflo]

I’m be surprised if there isn’t more to the denial of psychological help story than has been told. Yes the monarchy can be archaic and slow to change. But Prince Charles had psychotherapy for years (publicly acknowledged), Diana had psychotherapy a number of times (including for post-natal depression and bulimia), Harry has stated that he’s seen psychiatrists and counsellors, and Princess Margaret was treated by a psychiatrist as an in-patient at Kensington palace for depression. These are all senior, high profile figures in the royal family, the same as Meghan. Why would they specifically deny Meghan treatment, and why would Harry not immediately insist on appropriate treatment for his wife when one his the major charities he set up with his brother was Heads Together, aiming to end stigma of mental health issues? It doesn’t make sense to me, unless there’s more we’re not told.

I don’t think they necessarily helped themselves with the disclosure that they got married 3 days before the official wedding. Legally they can’t have done if they’re claiming it was just them and the Archbishop. Marriages have to have 2 witnesses and can only happen on authorised grounds in the U.K. - their cottage’s back garden isn’t likely to be an official premise. They might have had a blessing, but that isn’t getting “married”. The statement is misleading so why make it, and what other statements were similarly misleading?

The racism claims about Archie not being made a Prince are nonsense as far as I understand - it’s a protocol decision, pure and simple. Making it about race diminishes the power of claims in that sphere that may genuinely hold water.

Harry’s claims about being financially cut-off by his family. Really? From a grown man with a reputed £30m in the bank? Forgive me if I’m not overly sympathetic on that front.

 

[missy]

I don’t think they necessarily helped themselves with the disclosure that they got married 3 days before the official wedding. Legally they can’t have done if they’re claiming it was just them and the Archbishop. Marriages have to have 2 witnesses and can only happen on authorised grounds in the U.K. - their cottage’s back garden isn’t likely to be an official premise. They might have had a blessing, but that isn’t getting “married”. The statement is misleading, so why make it?

@lissyflo yup. They might not have been officially married before the big affair as they said during the Oprah interview.

“ Sources close to the couple have since admitted to Town and Country magazine that the private wedding was instead a private exchanging of vows.

The incident sparked one vicar to yesterday ask: 'Are the rest of their claims BS too?'

Doubts had already been expressed over whether such a ceremony would have even been legal with one clergyman insisting the Archbishop of Canterbury – who Meghan said had conducted the wedding – should explain.

A spokesman for the Archbishop today said he would not comment on personal or pastoral matters. ”

If they did lie about this (and as of now we don’t definitively know either way) it makes much of (veracity of their) their interview questionable.

 

[Rfisher]

More I read, the more I consider it an infomercial for their joint business/NFP venture.

Edited to add
IIRC, Harry said something about ‘this/what they are doing is a way to earn to support his family /provide for the security detail’

His inheritance isn’t meant to be touched or used. It’s for his heirs. I think that’s the way it’s been for his ancestors and he intends to keep it that way.

I don’t think he’s googled to learn what to expect/how to adult, in not being a royal.

 

[Mreader]

The most outrageous thing from the interview was the skin color issue as well as the mental health issue. That’s very damaging and unless they are outright lying (which I doubt), that will be hard to explain away. The palace had a golden opportunity to embrace Meghan and use it in a way to tout diversity etc and it seems they squandered it. I don’t follow the royals but some of my UK friends have said that it’s unusual for the palace not to issue statements refuting claims from the tabloids and it appears they never did that against all the vitriol with Meghan. One UK friend also said it’s a myth that taxpayers pay all royal security that the palace also has its own monies - idk - she also said lesser royals also have security so it’s insane for Harry to have none when they “stepped back” especially since the original plan was “stepping back” and not full on quitting. Regarding the $$ I read that he got 9 million from mom and if he was totally cut off financially I know it may be hard to think “poor little rich boy” yet 9 mil to pay security salaries benefits etc indefinitely wouldn’t go as far as it may sound.

 

[icy_jade]

One UK friend also said it’s a myth that taxpayers pay all royal security that the palace also has its own monies - idk - she also said lesser royals also have security so it’s insane for Harry to have none when they “stepped back” especially since the original plan was “stepping back” and not full on quitting.

Princess Beatrice and Eugenie only get taxpayer funded security when they attend events on behalf of the royal family. Otherwise, they are supposed to pay for security themselves. Zara Phillips, the daughter of Princess Anne, has no protection too.

When Harry made the decision to quit, he and his family was no longer entitled to paid security, same as his cousins. I’m not sure why he expected differently especially when there was widespread reporting on how no government wanted to bear the cost of security for them.

Prince Charles had his plans for a slimmed down royal family for years. Widely reported way before Meghan was in the picture. So I’m not sure Harry’s children were ever factored into that slimmed down royal family vision (thinking of the 4 generation of monarch pic that was taken). Don’t forget that Archie has 3 other cousins. So he’s pretty far down the line (to the throne). Plus his cousins will one day have their own family too.

——————
Wanted to add that this interview made me appreciate Prince William and especially his lovely wife Kate so much more. I think he really got lucky when he married her! It took many many years for the tabloids to be kind to her. Kudos to her.

 

[elizat]

I’m be surprised if there isn’t more to the denial of psychological help story than has been told. Yes the monarchy can be archaic and slow to change. But Prince Charles had psychotherapy for years (publicly acknowledged), Diana had psychotherapy a number of times (including for post-natal depression and bulimia), Harry has stated that he’s seen psychiatrists and counsellors, and Princess Margaret was treated by a psychiatrist as an in-patient at Kensington palace for depression. These are all senior, high profile figures in the royal family, the same as Meghan. Why would they specifically deny Meghan treatment, and why would Harry not immediately insist on appropriate treatment for his wife when one his the major charities he set up with his brother was Heads Together, aiming to end stigma of mental health issues? It doesn’t make sense to me, unless there’s more we’re not told.

I don’t think they necessarily helped themselves with the disclosure that they got married 3 days before the official wedding. Legally they can’t have done if they’re claiming it was just them and the Archbishop. Marriages have to have 2 witnesses and can only happen on authorised grounds in the U.K. - their cottage’s back garden isn’t likely to be an official premise. They might have had a blessing, but that isn’t getting “married”. The statement is misleading so why make it, and what other statements were similarly misleading?

The racism claims about Archie not being made a Prince are nonsense as far as I understand - it’s a protocol decision, pure and simple. Making it about race diminishes the power of claims in that sphere that may genuinely hold water.

Harry’s claims about being financially cut-off by his family. Really? From a grown man with a reputed £30m in the bank? Forgive me if I’m not overly sympathetic on that front.

Yes. A lot of this- a lot.

A few thoughts.

1. I do not believe she had no idea or information about the royal family or Harry. Seriously rings hollow. Maybe she was not a follower or particularly interested, but to act as though she was just fully unaware of any of it, especially when she began to get more involved with him, just sounds incredibly doubtful.

2. I struggle to understand the idea that nobody would allow her mental health help. Especially with all that noted above and the patronages geared around it! Maybe they wanted it to be private and not splashed everywhere, but the idea that they would deny her that and allow the others, and promote it publicly, seems far fetched. If the idea is that she was denied to being biracial, which is what I felt she was trying to say, then why did her husband not step in? Aren't these two people adults that can call for emergency services if needed? Also, how was he being a good partner if he just let this go on? Did she just magically get better with no help?

3. It seemed like the conversation about the skin color of the children happened before they were even married- or maybe I misunderstood. Either way, I think that it was wrong, but on the other hand, just come out and say the person's name that allegedly did this. This felt like a gearing up a big tell all book/tour by providing snippets and whispers.

4. It's hard to feel sorry for them. She is someone that is financially successful in her own right and her profile has been so far lifted above when she was on TV/Hallmark movies that the world is her oyster. The idea that two people, one a 39 year old woman that presumably paid for her own security before due to being an actress, and a 35 plus year old man with over 30 million dollars, need their father or someone else to support them, is not something I can muster sympathy for on any level.

When most people are running from a bad situation, they don't have people like Tyler Perry to let them crash at his mansion with a full security detail and pay for their expenses and they don't then later buy an over 14 million dollar mansion on their own months later. They are out of touch with reality and what it is like to live outside their own privileged and comfortable bubble.

5. Does Harry really not understand why his son is not automatically a prince? Really? And he could not explain it to her? Do they both not see that other great grandchildren of the Queen that are not in the direct line to the throne don't have titles either? Or even grandchildren of the queen, that are not in the direct line? The American media is really painting this as a race issue (see CNN today), but it's just not the way it is done historically. If he was made a prince as a great grandchild of the queen, not in direct line to the throne, it would be different, not the norm. He can receive a title when Charles becomes King though, from what I can tell from my reading, but not before.

Archie was never going to be a prince upon birth- “… the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms.”

To act as though Harry was unaware of this, and that he didn't explain this to his wife, seems without any logic that makes sense.

6. They want security provided, but they don't want to be working members full time. This appears to be where they want what they want, under their terms, but they were asking for the benefits that full time working royals receive, without being that. Andrew has had to pay for his daughter's security since what, 2011/2012? They are not full time working members. This is not a new concept.

All in all, this felt like nibbles to be able to generate press/pr/spin to be able to fund their lifestyle for the future and both came off to me as out of touch.

 

[Mreader]

Princess Beatrice and Eugenie only get taxpayer funded security when they attend events on behalf of the royal family. Otherwise, they are supposed to pay for security themselves. Zara Phillips, the daughter of Princess Anne, has no protection too.

When Harry made the decision to quit, he and his family was no longer entitled to paid security, same as his cousins. I’m not sure why he expected differently especially when there was widespread reporting on how no government wanted to bear the cost of security for them.

Prince Charles had his plans for a slimmed down royal family for years. Widely reported way before Meghan was in the picture. So I’m not sure Harry’s children were ever factored into that slimmed down royal family vision (thinking of the 4 generation of monarch pic that was taken). Don’t forget that Archie has 3 other cousins. So he’s pretty far down the line (to the throne). Plus his cousins will one day have their own family too.

——————
Wanted to add that this interview made me appreciate Prince William and especially his lovely wife Kate so much more. I think he really got lucky when he married her! It took many many years for the tabloids to be kind to her. Kudos to her.

Right but they maintain that at first they weren't quitting; they just didn't want to be "senior" and aren't there members of the royal family that aren't "senior" that still get security? I'm not talking about when they totally left; which they did when everything blew up from the whole "stepping back" thing. Also, it was unclear first she said he wouldn't be "prince or princess" then she said "he wouldn't have a title" so I didn't know whether it was that Archie wouldn't have a title, period. Would that be abnormal? Not to have a title period?

 

[Begonia]

Yup, agree with everything you said @elizat, but especially the last bit "being able to fund their lifestyle for the future". No they weren't paid for this tell all in the traditional sense, but money is changing hands here. Oprah said at one point "Harry and I are working on...".

 

[icy_jade]

aren't there members of the royal family that aren't "senior" that still get security

I think no. There was a pull back a few years ago, maybe 10 years ago (?) and security was slashed for minor royals. They do get security when they attend official events representing the royal family, but not otherwise.

Happy to be corrected if this is inaccurate.

"he wouldn't have a title" so I didn't know whether it was that Archie wouldn't have a title, period. Would that be abnormal? Not to have a title period

Not really as Prince Edward’s children are not titled. Archie by default at birth is an Earl (?) but at the time of his birth it was reported that his parents didn’t want him to have a title. So who knows the truth but to your question, not at all abnormal as several of Queen Elizabeth’s grandchildren are not titled. So no surprise if her great grandchildren are not titled too.

 

[Jsand]

If they were *truly* concerned about finances, they could have considered “settling” for a $4 million mansion instead of a $14 million one... just a thought

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

If they were *truly* concerned about finances, they could have considered “settling” for a $4 million mansion instead of a $14 million one... just a thought

Lol +1000

 

[Mreader]

I admit when I saw the chickens scene, I did think of Marie Antoinette and her golden scissors on her Versailles "farm" . But honestly the discussion of skin color, mental health, and refusal to back her up when the press decimated her. I find that very sad.

 

[Austina]

This has just appeared in my newsfeed.

 

[Rfisher]

I think the number of times it was said the Queen herself was never anything but kind, was curious. I don’t doubt it- but saying it multiple times is the curious part.
I also think if the person who made the comment about offspring skin color was not Phillip, Charles, or William, a name would have been given.

 

[Begonia]

I think the number of times it was said the Queen herself was never anything but kind, was curious. I don’t doubt it- but saying it multiple times is the curious part.
I also think if the person who made the comment about offspring skin color was not Phillip, Charles, or William, a name would have been given.

I'm banking on Charles or Camilla. Anyone ever watched Tracy Ulman do Camilla? Omg...

 

[Mreader]

I'm banking on Charles or Camilla. Anyone ever watched Tracy Ulman do Camilla? Omg...

I suspect it was Charles.

 

[MillieLou]

Kate, William and Harry have been very vocal and open on the subject of mental health. They have actually done amazing work in the UK in reducing stigma by being open about their own struggles and encouraging others to talk freely and seek support. Just an example:

Most people in the UK know this, as it's been widely publicised over here for years. Which is why the claims she was stopped from getting mental health support don't seem to add up over here.

Marriages are in the public record in the UK, so we know exactly when they got married. Why not just be honest and say they exchanged private vows three days before?

It's things like this that a UK audience would immediately know are just nonsense and feel a little frustrated. Just be straight with us.

Anyway, I hope they achieved whatever it was they wanted to from the interview and both sides can move on in peace.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

I suspect it was Charles.

You know, they don't even give any details at all to cast a shadow of doubt upon all members of the family, as @MillieLou also said.

Tbh if Charles (or any other member) said anything like: "depending on what the babies will look like exactly , you will potentially have to brace yourselves for a whole new level and dimension of ugly from the tabloids , which is horrible but we won't be able to prevent it "

Then they did in fact talk about the skin colour of the baby, but without racist intent.
By omitting the facts they let everyone imagine the worst.

 

[MillieLou]

Sorry @kipari I edited my post to avoid drama, but I 100% agree the "someone said it but I'm not saying who" is an unfair way to behave. Be transparent and honest, or don't raise it at all.

Everyone in the UK knows the three members of the royal family prone to racially insensitive gaffes are:

1. Prince Philip (who everyone would have assumed it was, hence the need to deliberately exclude him from the suspects...)
2. Princess Michael of Kent (dreadful woman)
3. Ironically, Prince Harry himself (though hopefully he's grown out of this now)

So it's almost certainly number 2, but they want us to think it's Prince Charles or Prince William.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

Sorry @kipari I edited my post to avoid drama, but I 100% agree the "someone said it but I'm not saying who" is an unfair way to behave. Be transparent and honest, or don't raise it at all.

Everyone in the UK knows the three members of the royal family prone to racially insensitive gaffes are:

1. Prince Philip (who everyone would have assumed it was, hence the need to deliberately exclude him from the suspects...)
2. Princess Michael of Kent (dreadful woman)
3. Ironically, Prince Harry himself (though hopefully he's grown out of this now)

So it's almost certainly number 2, but they want us to think it's Prince Charles or Prince William.

Goodness didn't even think of that old witch ...

 

[MRBXXXFVVS1]

I haven't watched the entire interview, but I've watched snippets. I have sympathy for H&M based on what they shared (racism, lack of mental health access/resources are unacceptable), however I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle and they are "creating" their story. I can't really imagine not researching and doing due diligence on royal life expectations. The interview was certainly damaging to the monarchy's image and likely to their personal family relationships. IMO, it's best to address these issues privately - although I can see how they have tried, felt "trapped," and were not successful in trying to do so.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

More I read, the more I consider it an infomercial for their joint business/NFP venture.

Edited to add
IIRC, Harry said something about ‘this/what they are doing is a way to earn to support his family /provide for the security detail’

His inheritance isn’t meant to be touched or used. It’s for his heirs. I think that’s the way it’s been for his ancestors and he intends to keep it that way.

I don’t think he’s googled to learn what to expect/how to adult, in not being a royal.

I know very bright people who did not get on to the army officers course
Harry just doesn't seem a very bright cookie - i think strings must have been pulled
Shame he didn't stay in the army but he resigned to help take over some of his grandfather's duties as Philip got very old

 

[icy_jade]

This has just appeared in my newsfeed.

 

[chemgirl]

I didn’t watch the interview, but did watch Piers Morgan’s public freakout when he was called out for his gross behaviour towards Megan.

I’m glad the interview happened just to see that creep called out.

*For backstory MARRIED Piers Morgan met with MM for drinks and she didn’t return his calls afterwards. He’s repeatedly tried to shame her for it and regularly attacks her on his show. He expressed that he knows her and doesn’t believe her claims that she was suicidal.

 

[Mreader]

I didn’t watch the interview, but did watch Piers Morgan’s public freakout when he was called out for his gross behaviour towards Megan.

I’m glad the interview happened just to see that creep called out.

*For backstory MARRIED Piers Morgan met with MM for drinks and she didn’t return his calls afterwards. He’s repeatedly tried to shame her for it and regularly attacks her on his show. He expressed that he knows her and doesn’t believe her claims that she was suicidal.

He's a jerk.

 

[Mreader]

Kate, William and Harry have been very vocal and open on the subject of mental health. They have actually done amazing work in the UK in reducing stigma by being open about their own struggles and encouraging others to talk freely and seek support. Just an example:

Most people in the UK know this, as it's been widely publicised over here for years. Which is why the claims she was stopped from getting mental health support don't seem to add up over here.

Marriages are in the public record in the UK, so we know exactly when they got married. Why not just be honest and say they exchanged private vows three days before?

It's things like this that a UK audience would immediately know are just nonsense and feel a little frustrated. Just be straight with us.

Anyway, I hope they achieved whatever it was they wanted to from the interview and both sides can move on in peace.

This makes it even more egregious that when she said she needed help, help wasn't given. So did she straight up lie about that? Doubtful. The palace hasn't denied the claims...