Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

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

Will you watch Megan, Harry, and Oprah?

  • Absolutely yes

    Votes: 20 18.0%
  • Probably

    Votes: 20 18.0%
  • If I'm not busy

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Mabye

    Votes: 3 2.7%
  • Probably not

    Votes: 12 10.8%
  • No

    Votes: 54 48.6%
  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    111
  • This poll will close: .

chemgirl

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,273
Look at this web archive and the mention of Kate in her old blog:


There are point by point takedowns of the various claims made during the interviews but this and also an old pic of Harry sitting behind Prince Charles on a bike are some of the more interesting stuff dug out so far imo.

17E921BD-3497-4EC0-9A3F-0956E8D184BD.jpeg

Also, anyone surprised that their (popularity?) ratings have shot up in the US but plummeted in the UK?

Canadian married to a British person here and the disparity in their popularity doesn’t surprise me.

Many of the takedowns I see seem a little weak and to some extent can be attributed to cultural differences.

Like being aware of the royal wedding doesn’t necessarily mean she follows the royal family. She may have exaggerated to some degree, but the royal wedding was a major topic of conversation on ever news station. After the wedding they were all off of my radar again. Her blog post has nothing to do with Kate beyond that one line. She would have been aware of any major news, but beyond that we don’t just don’t know.

The wedding thing could be a cultural difference. It was funny watching the British CNN commentator try to explain why it was an issue and the Americans were like so what? We can get married anywhere so a vow exchange and blessing from the archbishop could very well be the day they celebrate as their wedding. It’s not legal in the UK, but a similar ceremony would be real in North America. On the flip side, my husband is British and non-church weddings there don’t feel real to me. We all crowd in to a government building and it’s this very official thing. A Canadian friend married in England and they had a vow exchange and blessing in a garden at the reception venue because their legal wedding was so cold and just not at all what the bride envisioned for her wedding. Maybe the big televised wedding was too stressful/impersonal for Meghan and Harry they did the garden “wedding” as their special day.

Meghan’s sister claims that they did have a relationship when Meghan was a child and then pulls out a photo of them when Meghan was a toddler. Does this mean Meghan lied, or did they meet once or twice when Meghan was too young to really remember it? Half siblings with major age gaps often don’t have close relationships.

There’s a lot of nitpicking going on in the British press right now. Are Meghan and Harry telling the truth? I don’t know. It just seems like the press is out doing it’s thing.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
46,153
Also, anyone surprised that their (popularity?) ratings have shot up in the US but plummeted in the UK?

No, not surprised at all. Americans love to gobble up all gossip Royal and otherwise. We are gullible. A lot of Americans buy what is fed to them through the media. Not me and not my friends but obviously many Americans do.

I watched the interview and was not impressed with H and M. This American's point of view only.


This is Interesting but not surprising. Younger people in the UK view H and M more favorably.


"The couple is far more well-liked among younger people in the U.K.: Harry and Markle are viewed positively by 59% and 55% of 18-24 year olds, respectively, versus only 27% and 13% of those over age 65."

So not all people in the UK view them unfavorably.


And also interesting:

"Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip’s net favorability ratings with Americans also went up after the interview by smaller margins"
 

qubitasaurus

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
1,364
He was an active military and (iirc
Helicopter pilot). That's quite a career for most mortals. It will, however not buy a 14 m mansion if one thinks that one is entitled of not touching one's inheritance at all.

It's funny how one ( the general public not directed at you, @qubitasaurus ) will gasp at the mere thought of any of those personae actually working (like, real work) without cashing in on the family name at all.

I also do think that Meghan was not aware of the restrictions in luxury royal life actually means. People curtsy to you, compared to Hollywood they do have a fleet of footmen etc etc and lots of bling and artwork.

But it's not theirs, really and they're the custodian for future generations. So spending money on all that is heritage is fine. Luxurious goods for oneself not so much, though, because the public who pays will be very critical of it.
(This explains also, why Kate's BOUGHT jewelry is relatively modest and why she choses to use Hugh street fashion often).

Eta: that's also why most children live in cottages at their parents' grand estates. It's convenient and cheap and they can benefit from their security , btw.

I'm not saying I'd be keen on that kind of life or that this kind of dependence as an adult is non-problematic. Many of them seem, however, given the choice to renounce either their career and independence OR the title/dependence etc to chose the latter. (The Wessexes come to mind)

Whatever one thinks of it: it's nothing that's special at all to H & M s situation.

Look at the Phillips kids: all living in "cottages" at their mum's.
Same goes for the York girls. Living at granny's.

Actually I dont think that neccessarily translated into employable skills for him. His whereabouts had to be carefully hidden. Googling it sugested the press shadowed him the entire time as part of the deal to keep his location secret until he returned home. Im sure you'll find that there was a whole heap of people buzzing arround monitoring for information leaking and threats. If I was in command of a military unit I'd consider him a major liability not employable -- either the unit would become a target or the press would end up broadcasting a bunch of stuff about your current location/status along with what harry ate for breakfast. The overhead resources to broker a deal to keep any of this from happening (like what has happened historically), would make it relatively impractical to deploy him except maybe as a public relations stunt or a favour to someone.

I just dont think anyone thought this self sufficiency thing out -- not harry when he left for the US, but more relevantly there was an earlier junction where neither he or his family thought it through. I would personally not want this, either for myself or my children. So while the idea of him doing real work may stune a good fraction of the world, this seems like more of a deploarable rather than enviable circumstance to me.

Ofcourse I simultaneously agree basically with what you said above... I just think a lot of things engineered this problem.
 

kipari

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
2,982
I just dont think anyone thought this self sufficiency thing out -- not harry when he left for the US, but more relevantly there was an earlier junction where neither he or his family thought it through. I would personally not want this, either for myself or my children. So while the idea of him doing real work may stune a good fraction of the world, this seems like more of a deploarable rather than enviable circumstance to me.

Ofcourse I simultaneously agree basically with what you said above... I just think a lot of things engineered this problem.

100% agree!

I was flabbergasted that Wallis Simpson & the Duke of Windsor were living in a big mansion in Bois de Boulogne in Paris for a symbolic 1franc rent ....

Times have changed dramatically.

I cannot image the public outcry in France nowadays. Totally unthinkable.

So employability was never a concern . Royalty and nobility have been living with the certainty one would always be sheltered by someone because of birth. Even a foreign nation, some relative.some kind of apanage... Well those times are over.

But the institution is about 40 years behind
 

MillieLou

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
438
But it's not theirs, really and they're the custodian for future generations. So spending money on all that is heritage is fine. Luxurious goods for oneself not so much, though, because the public who pays will be very critical of it.
(This explains also, why Kate's BOUGHT jewelry is relatively modest and why she choses to use Hugh street fashion often).

@kipari explains it very well for the non-UK audience. It's not a flashy celebrity life. On the contrary.

Off topic but as this is PS, this is the eternity ring William bought for Kate after the birth of Prince George, which she wears every day. At the time it was £995 GBP (gone up in price since then, but still easily accessible and can be bought by anyone). I'd venture to say that most eternity rings owned by PSers cost more...

 

icy_jade

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
4,203
I just dont think anyone thought this self sufficiency thing out -- not harry when he left for the US, but more relevantly there was an earlier junction where neither he or his family thought it through.

I think his family (and most of us) expected him to be a “career royal”. So he would have been taken care of for life. After all his father and brother are expected to be kings eventually and there is no reason to expect that he needed to be given skills to be self-sufficient away from the royal family.

Plus as a young man Harry isn’t the most “mature” (think his Nazi costume trouble) and wasn’t academically inclined. He didn’t do well in his exams and went to military after A levels unlike his brother and cousins who went on to study further in universities. At that age, I’m not sure you can exactly blame his family...
 

elizat

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
2,865
Look at this web archive and the mention of Kate in her old blog:


There are point by point takedowns of the various claims made during the interviews but this and also an old pic of Harry sitting behind Prince Charles on a bike are some of the more interesting stuff dug out so far imo.

17E921BD-3497-4EC0-9A3F-0956E8D184BD.jpeg

Also, anyone surprised that their (popularity?) ratings have shot up in the US but plummeted in the UK?

I think she knew about the family. I will say that I was never a big royal watcher, but when the wedding in 2014 occured, you couldn't really avoid it on the news/gossip websites. I think she probably learned a good bit then. And, she was living in a Commonwealth country for years. I think there is a lot that would contradict her and the truth, like anything else, probably is somewhere between what she/Harry said and what the others remember. I did not walk away from this feeling sorry for her though. I can sympathize that she had mental health issues, but she has the means, funds and access to treat them. I feel sorry for the millions of homeless and low income earners around the globe that have undiagnosed mental illness and struggle on a daily basis for food, shelter, and basic needs.
 

elizat

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
2,865
100% agree!

I was flabbergasted that Wallis Simpson & the Duke of Windsor were living in a big mansion in Bois de Boulogne in Paris for a symbolic 1franc rent ....

Times have changed dramatically.

I cannot image the public outcry in France nowadays. Totally unthinkable.

So employability was never a concern . Royalty and nobility have been living with the certainty one would always be sheltered by someone because of birth. Even a foreign nation, some relative.some kind of apanage... Well those times are over.

But the institution is about 40 years behind

This, too.

Actually, I think Charles may get it. The idea to slim down the working royals shows this. It is a different time and the royals bring in tourism, and interest to the country, but the idea of this sprawling group of royals is not sustainable. It has been made well known that the children of Edward and Sophie will have to work. What they can do for work may vary than the general public because they do have an advantage with the name and connections.
 

Mreader

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
1,457
[. I did not walk away from this feeling sorry for her though. I can sympathize that she had mental health issues, but she has the means, funds and access to treat them. I feel sorry for the millions of homeless and low income earners around the globe that have undiagnosed mental illness and struggle on a daily basis for food, shelter, and basic needs.
[/QUOTE]

According to her, her struggles were dismissed. Just because you have the means to treat them doesn’t mean they magically go away. My best friend is bi-polar and has the income to “treat” it but unfortunately has tried to take her life on more than one occasion. I too feel awful for people without the means to tackle it, but that doesn’t mean I have zero sympathy for people who do. It doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.
 

icy_jade

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
4,203
This, too.

Actually, I think Charles may get it. The idea to slim down the working royals shows this. It is a different time and the royals bring in tourism, and interest to the country, but the idea of this sprawling group of royals is not sustainable. It has been made well known that the children of Edward and Sophie will have to work. What they can do for work may vary than the general public because they do have an advantage with the name and connections.

Yes, that’s why I won’t be surprised if the intent was never for Harry’s children to be titled/working royals as Charles did not agree for his sibling’s children to be working royals. Sort of streamlined so that only the children of the monarch are working royals but not the grandchildren unless they are in direct line of succession. So yes for George and his two siblings, but not for Harry’s children. Not due to racist intent but to streamline the royal family.
 

elizat

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
2,865
[. I did not walk away from this feeling sorry for her though. I can sympathize that she had mental health issues, but she has the means, funds and access to treat them. I feel sorry for the millions of homeless and low income earners around the globe that have undiagnosed mental illness and struggle on a daily basis for food, shelter, and basic needs.

According to her, her struggles were dismissed. Just because you have the means to treat them doesn’t mean they magically go away. My best friend is bi-polar and has the income to “treat” it but unfortunately has tried to take her life on more than one occasion. I too feel awful for people without the means to tackle it, but that doesn’t mean I have zero sympathy for people who do. It doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.
[/QUOTE]

I said I feel sympathy for her. I didn't say that I have "zero sympathy." Without going into detail, I am aware that having the means to treat mental health issues doesn't make them go away on their own. I never said that it did. I actually questioned pages back, how she was able to move on from her struggles, because it was never addressed that she ever actually got help. I'm not going to talk about personal things, but just removing the negative stimulus doesn't "fix" everything.

Here is my issue- she is an adult and her husband is an adult with millions of dollars. He was a chair or patron of a charity for mental health. If his wife was having problems, I struggle to think that even he would allow it to go on without getting her help, even if senior members or admin staff within the royal family were not keen on it, especially given their history with treatment of mental health that has been public for other members.

There is her recollection, the recollection of others and then the truth is somewhere in between, as it usually always is.
 

Austina

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
5,408
I didn’t watch the interview, but the ‘nitpicking’ is basically to put right things that were said. It’s been reported that they said they didn’t want a title for their son when he was born, but now they assert he was refused a title because of his skin colour. As has already been pointed out, Archie was not in line to get the title of Prince until Charles is King, that’s just the way it is and he has not been singled out for any pernicious reason. Harry has said he wasn’t allowed to ride a bike (or words to that effect), but there are plenty of pictures of him doing just that. I think it raises the issue that if you say things that can be disproved, then it could cast doubt on other things you’ve said.

Apparently Meghan asked the HR department for help and was told it’s not something that was in their remit to deal with, they deal with employees of the royal household. I wonder why Harry didn’t immediately get her help, he presumably had contacts that would steer him in the right direction, and failing that, it doesn’t seem likely that any therapists would put the phone down when called by the Prince.

As with all things, there are two sides to every story, and I doubt any of us will ever know what really went on, especially as it’s well known that the Royal Family rarely comments on such matters.
 

qubitasaurus

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
1,364
100% agree!

I was flabbergasted that Wallis Simpson & the Duke of Windsor were living in a big mansion in Bois de Boulogne in Paris for a symbolic 1franc rent ....

Times have changed dramatically.

I cannot image the public outcry in France nowadays. Totally unthinkable.

So employability was never a concern . Royalty and nobility have been living with the certainty one would always be sheltered by someone because of birth. Even a foreign nation, some relative.some kind of apanage... Well those times are over.

But the institution is about 40 years behind

Then truthfully it is probably already resolving itself, in the end it will only be a question of the time frame. Most of us dont live this way (not because we would not like to be able to demand/expect all these fringe benefits and the 14 milion dollar mansion but) because no one would tolerate it. It would be considered mildly insane for us to be walking around saying our families were the firm, and we expected to earn a living by talking on operah/netflix about ourselves. I think they are in for an interesting few years.


I think his family (and most of us) expected him to be a “career royal”. So he would have been taken care of for life. After all his father and brother are expected to be kings eventually and there is no reason to expect that he needed to be given skills to be self-sufficient away from the royal family.

Plus as a young man Harry isn’t the most “mature” (think his Nazi costume trouble) and wasn’t academically inclined. He didn’t do well in his exams and went to military after A levels unlike his brother and cousins who went on to study further in universities. At that age, I’m not sure you can exactly blame his family...

Yes, definitely any grown adult is responsible for the outcomes of their own choices. Usually this is pro gratis, as we generally have to live with the consequences of these choices -- so there is no way to avoid taking responsibility for them.

I do think though that he has had a truely impressive career in public relations stunts (which was the royal career bit). And he is now using that experience to earn a living, this was the path he/they set him on. But I feel this is somehow an extension of the above idea, they were all grown ups and they are all living with the outcome of these choices (and I feel there were a lot of choices made to end up where they are today).
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Style File: Audrey Hepburn
    Style File: Audrey Hepburn
    Tallulah Willis Engaged
    Tallulah Willis Engaged
    May Birthstone 2021 - Emerald
    May Birthstone 2021 - Emerald

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top