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

[MillieLou]

I don't know @Mreader . I don't particularly like the royal family and find them all a bit of a waste of time. My point was just that these days, they are certainly not embarrassed about the "stigma" of mental health issues, and don't see it as a weakness as perhaps they may have done 30 years ago. On the contrary, as @lissyflo pointed out above, they are actually very open about their own mental health / psychological needs and the input they have received. This may come as a surprise to a non-UK audience who imagine they are all stiff upper lip and refuse to acknowledge mental health needs.

That doesn't mean that Meghan is lying. It's not necessarily one or the other. She clearly feels she wasn't supported. The RF should reflect on how they offer support if someone is saying that.

The palace are not going to deny anything; you can't read anything into that. "Recollections may vary" is as strongly worded as it's going to get...

 

[Polished]

I'm just not sure I can work out where Meghan and Harry are going with their experience of how they were treated by the Firm.

It would appear that all stops were pulled out for them when Harry and Meghan married. Very experienced staff were recruited to make sure Meghan was made to feel welcome and that she would receive the best of advice and support for her future role. According to sources neither Harry nor Meghan took advantage of any of that.

I'd be loathe to pour cold water on the concerns Meghan raised because one could only imagine the pressure a person might be under dealing with joining that Institution with the scrutiny of the world on you. In fact one of the things that most resonated with me was when she said: "never know what another person is feeling" because impressions can be misleading. At the event she was referring to, she looked like she was the luckiest woman in the world, at the Royal Albert, tightly holding her handsome Prince's hand in sparkling deep blue.

However as they move forward, they are dependent on their royal status to attract attention to the environmental and humanitarian causes they are interested in pursuing. I'm afraid when people can see discrepancies in what they've said in this interview, not to mention the clear holding onto grudges... Even if they feel justified it just might not be the right way to promote their particular royal brand.

 

[Ionysis]

Are MARRIED people not allowed to meet someone in the pub for a drink? Odd comment...

 

[Polished]

Are MARRIED people not allowed to meet someone in the pub for a drink? Odd comment...

Is this addressed to me? The Royal Albert isn't a pub, it's one of the most famous buildings in London and Meghan and Harry were attending an official function there. For context:

Hundreds of photos captured Meghan Markle at her lowest point, but nobody saw the truth

Wrapped in a sequin gown, the sixth in line to the British throne by her side, Meghan Markle was every bit the picture of royalty. But far from the magical evening portrayed in the headlines, she "didn't want to be alive".

www.abc.net.au

 

[Ionysis]

*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.

No it was in reply to this. I’ve never heard any imputation from anyone that Piers Morgan had some kind of nefarious design on MM. I always understood she cultivated his friendship for his influence with the media until she didn’t need him anymore and unceremoniously dumped him and lost his number.

 

[Polished]

Ah sorry lonysis. Piers Morgan has certainly been very vocal in his view that Meghan Markle "ghosted" him when she didn't need him anymore. He also implies that this is her character trait, she drops people as soon as they can't further her anymore. He's made a name for himself by being "passionate" but he's also very relentless with heavy criticism. He's traded a lot on having known her at all. Really though a person is allowed to not keep seeing someone if they don't want to.

 

[qubitasaurus]

Sometimes you can have all the warning signs for something and still not believe it. When you get hit in the face because it was really that bad and the experience did not live up to your (unrealistic but nevertheless very real) expectations, it can be hard to swallow it and admit someone did try to tell you what it was going to be like. They were just one voice amoung many and not the one you listened to. I feel it's likely both of them are telling one strain of the truth, and do indeed feel really agrieved.

I dont think operah should have taken that interview though. Sounds like a massive cash out publicity stunt made over whipping up public sympathy for one side vs the other; in what was a serries of internal family fights (over nasty/insensative things family members said to each other, and whoes dad pays for what, who is progratis entitled to X for life because they were born into the family etc). Honestly families usually resolve these things internaly. What are we (randoms) doing in the middle of that? Wow that was a pretty immoral/unprincipaled thing to make money off for operah.

It doesnt seem like Harry's family raised him right. If he inherited a title and some of the crowns estates are attached to that title. Then maybe it would have been better to give him the proceeds of those estates and accept that if you didnt raise him to be self sufficient. Than you screwed up, and can take the fall out.

 

[missy]

 

[meely]

Just to add with what has already been said about Piers Morgan. It may have been dressed up but make no mistake he has made a very vindictive hate campaign against Meghan for several years now. The constant venom directed towards her is in no way proportional to what he claims she did to him.

 

[Ionysis]

Agree he does seem peculiarly vitriolic

 

[telephone89]

No it was in reply to this. I’ve never heard any imputation from anyone that Piers Morgan had some kind of nefarious design on MM. I always understood she cultivated his friendship for his influence with the media until she didn’t need him anymore and unceremoniously dumped him and lost his number.

So I admit I didn't actually watch the interview, but read about the "explosive details!!!111!!!" after the fact, and this was a very interesting part. No, I don't think chemgirl was saying you're not allowed to meet someone in a bar for drinks if you're married. But Piers had a creepy obsession with her, and is the actual embodiment of "nice guy syndrome". He was clearly interested in her (while married), and was upset when the NIGHT they met for drinks, she ended up leaving and meeting harry, and eventually distancing herself from him. She has never said anything bad about him or what happened, but he's going on and on (and onandonandonandonandon) about how they were friends and he was sooo nice and didnt deserve this. No mention on if he was a creepy MFer at their meeting, no mention that he's a crazy gossip hog and she wanted to keep her new relationship on the DL. This is a toxic mentality that is extremely dangerous to women.

If you think you're one of those 'nice guys' you need to read this right now

Although if you genuinely are nice, there are ways out of the friend-zone

www.independent.co.uk

The so-called 'Nice Guy', the often physically unattractive man who overcompensates with clingy and over-the-top behaviour to women ... these men are often trying to form "covert contracts" with the target of their affections.

 

[Matata]

Random thoughts:

** Being rich pampered royalty does not mean one is immune from emotional and psychological damage.

** I think Harry was damaged not only by his mother's death (for which I suspect there was insufficient support from some members of the family) but also from, what appears to me to be, an emotionally stunted familial group. Stiff upper lip, never complain, prim and proper all the time in public is, to me, a difficult and somewhat inhumane way to grow up and to live as an adult.

** I think there's a great deal of payback happening on Harry's part for whatever has contributed to his mental health issues. Perhaps a distant father, certainly Charles's relationship with Diana and Camilla, being known as the "spare" and perhaps simply having the type of personality that doesn't fit the mold and perhaps being made to feel inferior because of it.

** It's no surprise to me that, after Diana's attempt to expose the dark side of the family, that Harry, who seems to have needed his mom more than William, would attempt the same. Meghan seems to be the vehicle for accomplishing that. I think she's the stronger of the two and able/willing to try to force change on the monarchy for her own reasons as well as for Harry's reasons.

 

[Rfisher]

Isn’t Piers also saying he’s the one that got Meghan into the party, and got the cab that took her to, that night she met Harry?
The nerve of Meghan to not slip Piers a little sumthin for all the effort he produced.

So I admit I didn't actually watch the interview, but read about the "explosive details!!!111!!!" after the fact, and this was a very interesting part. No, I don't think chemgirl was saying you're not allowed to meet someone in a bar for drinks if you're married. But Piers had a creepy obsession with her, and is the actual embodiment of "nice guy syndrome". He was clearly interested in her (while married), and was upset when the NIGHT they met for drinks, she ended up leaving and meeting harry, and eventually distancing herself from him. She has never said anything bad about him or what happened, but he's going on and on (and onandonandonandonandon) about how they were friends and he was sooo nice and didnt deserve this. No mention on if he was a creepy MFer at their meeting, no mention that he's a crazy gossip hog and she wanted to keep her new relationship on the DL. This is a toxic mentality that is extremely dangerous to women.

If you think you're one of those 'nice guys' you need to read this right now

Although if you genuinely are nice, there are ways out of the friend-zone

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Papillion]

Here's a link to an article that has some info about the jewelry that was worn during the interview: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/10-details-may-missed-meghan-221235093.html

 

[Mreader]

I’ve seen that money meme floating around and I take some issue with it. She said that she did not want to be alive anymore. Whether somebody poor feels this way or somebody from a place of privilege feels this way, it’s a serious thing.

 

[kenny]

 

[doberman]

I didn't see the interview but there are a zillion articles out there, everywhere I turn, so of course I've read some. I like a little dose of gossip trash, I'll admit it.


At the risk of sounding callous and unfeeling, I give Megan's tale of woe some serious side-eye. Not impressed with either of them, they reek of self-absobtion. Meghan is clearly the dominant force here and I don't think she's been a positive influence on him ovrrall. Not trying to make her a villain, she is anxiously damaged from her upbringing and she has an actor's narricissism.

But Archie looks absolutely adorable in photos.

 

[lissyflo]

In case anyone is (still) interested, I found this article by Trevor Phillips to be considered.

Meghan and Harry blew the chance for royal renewal

I have too much skin in the game to be neutral about the row sparked this week by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I am a black divorcee in a mixed race marriage. Like Harry I have fathered two mixed race children. Their mother is herself of mixed heritage. One daughter has recently given birth to my

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[missy]

In case anyone is (still) interested, I found this article by Trevor Phillips to be considered.

Meghan and Harry blew the chance for royal renewal

I have too much skin in the game to be neutral about the row sparked this week by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I am a black divorcee in a mixed race marriage. Like Harry I have fathered two mixed race children. Their mother is herself of mixed heritage. One daughter has recently given birth to my

www.thetimes.co.uk

Can you copy and paste? It will only allow full access to members. Thanks.

 

[lissyflo]

Can you copy and paste? It will only allow full access to members. Thanks.

Here it is - article by Trevor Phillips who was head of the UK’s Commission for Racial Equality and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

“I have too much skin in the game to be neutral about the row sparked this week by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I am a black divorcee in a mixed-race marriage. Like Harry I have fathered two mixed-race children. Their mother is herself of mixed heritage. One daughter has recently given birth to my first grandson, a gorgeous melange of genes from four different continents, whose skin colouring may not be a million shades off Archie’s.

And though I have thankfully never sunk to the despair described by the duchess, our family has spent more than two decades watching helplessly as my older daughter battled a severe eating disorder. Hours before writing these words she and I bade farewell on a familiar threshold: the specialist unit to which she admits herself periodically when the daily struggle against her demons proves just too exhausting.
Add to all this the fact that, like the Sussexes, I have spent more time on the enemy radar of British newspapers than I would have liked, and that legitimate criticism has far too often strayed into racial prejudice that should shame those — on the left and right — who wrote it.
So from whatever point of view, I watched their interview with Oprah Winfrey with a deep sense of sorrow. I think there is some truth in the Sussexes’ accusations. But it could all have been so different. They, not just the palace, bear some responsibility for the blunders and misjudgments of the past three years.

None of us can truly know what the duke and duchess experienced when they talk about the toll on their mental health. I am no professional, and the therapy-speak they use is alien to British ears. But I do know what it feels like to have to pin your teenage child to the floor of a speeding car to prevent her throwing herself out of the door. I understand what it is to hear that she may not live long enough to go to university. I have met the girls with whom she shared the hellish wards reserved for the most distressed, and learnt not to look away when she tells me that I’ll never see one of them again because she has taken her own life. So I don’t take the duchess’s words lightly, even though her Californian vagueness on the subject doesn’t help. In my experience anyone with a diagnosable mental health condition is not only willing but eager to explain precisely what they think is wrong with them.

But it is hard to imagine that any family or firm, no matter how callous, would knowingly ignore such distress, as the duchess alleges happened to her. It puzzles me that the duke, having led the young royals’ Heads Together campaign, could not draw on its resources to support his own wife. This is not scepticism on my part; it is, perhaps, hope that if any good comes from this interview, it is that we become a country in which mental and emotional difficulties that affect so many cease to be silent, forbidden territory.

By contrast, there are no positives to draw from the duchess’s insinuations of racial prejudice within the royal family. Britain now stands in the dock internationally as a breeding ground for casual racial bigotry. Brits will see some irony here. Most of the finger pointing comes from the United States, a country where young black men are frequently gunned down by white police officers; where black families on average have one tenth of the wealth of white households; and where, outside work, people of different colours seldom mix. As for our European neighbours, aside from tiny Malta, people of colour in every EU country are more likely to report racial harassment than here in Britain; rates are over twice as high in Germany, Italy and Ireland.

Trevor Phillips, pictured with his two daughters, has experience of a mixed-race marriage and dealing with family mental health issues

Yet many of the duchess’s supporters have taken her words as confirmation that Britain is an irredeemably and uniquely racist society. The Sussexes told Oprah that there had been “conversations and concern” about the colour of her unborn child’s skin among unnamed royals. Crucially, because Winfrey failed to ask, we have no idea what Harry’s response was. The duchess’s enemies will quibble about the fact that she and Harry differed in their recollections of when and how many times this took place. But I believe what she says. It is almost certain that members of the family speculated about whether the child would look more like his mother or father. Any clan in which that conversation does not take place would be a pretty heartless outfit; even the Addams family were able to lampoon the inevitable cooing over their new baby :
Gomez: “He has my father’s eyes.”
Morticia: “Gomez, take them out of his mouth.”

But as Sir Ken Olisa, a black businessman who serves as the Queen’s lord lieutenant in London observed, we do not know the context or intent of the remarks, which makes all the difference in the world. His own (white) mother-in-law fretted for days about her first grandchild’s likely skin tone: “I just don’t know what colour wool to buy” she said to her daughter. It is equally possible that what Harry experienced was some antediluvian pearl-clutching from one of the royal family’s less sophisticated members. No tribe is without its embarrassing uncles and aunts: Windsor weddings are rich in such individuals. In such a big family, it’s likely there were conversations of both kinds.

Generally speaking, if both parents are Caucasian, there’s not going to be much doubt about skin tone so the talk is of eye and hair colour. Among black families like mine, we ponder other features — quality of hair, shape of the nose, hue of skin. In mixed families, the range of possibilities can be gloriously infinite. Of course, it can feel like a very different conversation depending on who is speaking. And concern might not be for the image of the family, but for the child herself.

The parent or grandparent of a black or mixed-race child knows that no matter how talented, intelligent or spirited your offspring, he or she will face prejudice of some form or another. One of my daughters carries my dark colouring while the other could easily pass for Spanish or Italian. At various times in their lives they have been treated differently by others. Any family that fails to confront the fact that being non-white in a largely white society will influence the life chances of even the most privileged child is simply delusional.

Racism on show in 1970s Britain
ALAMY

But on the evidence presented so far, the royal family looks no more or less prejudiced than any other family in multiracial Britain. However, the same cannot be said of the royal household — the palace bureaucracy. The Prince of Wales may seem an unlikely hero of wokeism but he has had his moments. After the urban riots of 1981 and 1985, Charles decided that his charities needed a more ethnically diverse leadership. One palace adviser suggested that he should take reform a little more slowly; after all, the boards had been monopolised by white Old Etonians so perhaps he should recruit the odd Old Harrovian or Wykehamist before leaping to the product of a Tottenham comprehensive? Charles ignored the advice and went ahead anyway; I became the first black face at his board table.

That said, it should not have been a surprise to anyone that Meghan would face a sometimes hostile press, irrespective of her colour. All female additions to the royal family have had a rough time: Diana, Fergie, Sophie bear witness to that. And who would have changed places with Camilla Parker Bowles in the wake of Diana’s death? Prominent black women, from Shirley Bassey to Diane Abbott, have been targeted at least as often. Meghan is not wrong to call out racism in the British media but it was naive to expect anything else.

Could things have been different? Yes, I think so. Meghan had an admirable pair of role models for being a successful “first black”: Barack and Michelle Obama. Obama’s record in office is middling to average: cautious at home, largely invisible abroad. His limited health reforms were stymied by his lousy succession planning. But none of that mattered. His main task, as far as history is concerned, was to be a successful first black president. By his eloquence, personal dignity and intelligence he effectively neutered race as a barrier to high office in America. In fact, it is unthinkable that in future any party could offer Americans a presidential ticket without at least one person of colour on the ballot. Without Obama there would be no Kamala Harris.

By contrast, Meghan and Harry blew the chance to normalise diversity within the royal family — an epic fail in a country where we have more people of colour in high ministerial office than the whole of the European Union put together. A Conservative administration counts among its top team Priti Patel and Kwasi Kwarteng. The electorate appears utterly undisturbed that the runaway favourite to be our next prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is the son of East African Asians. Each of these people has had to deal with dreadful treatment by the media, and not just the tabloids; Priti Patel’s portrayal as a bull with a ring through her nose by The Guardian was not only more hurtful personally but, in my view, politically far more offensive than anything levelled at Meghan. The duchess lacked a canny, steadying hand to guide and protect her. As chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, a job which guaranteed trouble, my inner team was led by a black woman, Colleen Harris, a veteran of both No 10 and the royal household. Like me, Harris is of Guyanese heritage, leading Prince Charles to christen us the Guyanese mafia. In her first big role, in the Downing Street press office, a reporter inquired “So, if you don’t mind my asking, how black are you?”. She replied crisply “black enough” and put down the phone. Meghan could have done with some of that toughness; and, by the way, it was known to the palace that she was available.

Instead, Meghan has placed a bet on TV therapy. It is a poor gamble. Oprah offered the facsimile of the analyst’s couch without any of the benefits of self- examination. I cannot believe that the couple had no idea what questions would be asked. Surely their deal with the streaming service Netflix would have clauses requiring consultation on the content of such a high-stakes interview. At the very least, Netflix would have wanted to be sure that they gave away nothing that would be of subsequent value.

So what we witnessed felt more like a performance. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This was an encounter between two accomplished actresses, one of them twice Oscar-nominated, brilliantly scripted to convey a narrative that would exalt the couple and bury the royal family. I don’t think it will work out that way. Viewers who did not come to the programme with minds already made up might have wondered why there was no mention of the duchess’s father and half-siblings, whom the Sussexes have allowed the media to present as trailer trash.

And Oprah missed what should have been the most important question of all. When Meghan met Harry, she claims she knew little about him or the royal family. Even so, two facts that most of the world knew about Harry were that he had once worn a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party and that he had called a fellow army officer “my little Paki friend”. He has apologised profusely for both transgressions. But the issue was never raised by Oprah. In a world where far too many communities are divided, the story of how these young lovers managed to get past that history could have been a true moment of openness, generosity and forgiveness. Those qualities are badly needed in a world where, partly thanks to the cesspits of social media, too much bigotry still flourishes.

Instead we were given the Disneyfication of difference. The duke and duchess have fled the poisoned palace, leaving their relatives trapped by its dark intrigues. The account we heard of the past was a black and white story of heroes and villains, of victims and persecutors. But the reality of our modern world is a struggle for understanding between the past and the present, of failed attempts at reconciliation, of trade-offs between justice and tribal self-interest.
The day that Meghan and Harry wed, I believed that they might bring to life Nelson Mandela’s injunction to “let your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears”. The handsome couple baring their souls in a Californian garden wanted us to believe that they had chosen hope. But the truth told by their actions is that their flight to the west coast is really driven by bitterness, anger and fear.”

 

[missy]

Thanks so much @lissyflo. An excellent perspective. Lots of wisdom in what he wrote.

 

[whitewave]

Great article— brings up so much to consider...

 

[chemgirl]

No it was in reply to this. I’ve never heard any imputation from anyone that Piers Morgan had some kind of nefarious design on MM. I always understood she cultivated his friendship for his influence with the media until she didn’t need him anymore and unceremoniously dumped him and lost his number.

I think it very much depends on the sources your reading and maybe where you live? I’m Canadian, where Suits was filmed, so to me she was always more famous than him and his whiney story about how he bought her a drink and then never heard from her again screams creep.

Maybe she wanted to be in trashy tabloids? Seems strange though.

Reports of a friendship seem overblown when Piers Morgan even describes their relationship as occurring mainly over social media with a meeting for drinks. He specified that he put her in a taxi and then she met Harry at a party and stopped contact.

Pro women groups focus on the fact that it is her right to decide if she wants to see him or not. His overreaction by writing nasty tweets about her and repeated criticism for nothing more than refusing to see him is absolutely disgusting behaviour.

 

[kenny]

Lissyflo, thanks for posting that.
I'm glad I read it.

How refreshing to read the opposite of a sound bite.

 

[icy_jade]

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

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.

Look at this web archive and the mention of Kate in her old blog:

TIG Talk with Princess Alia Al-Senussi - The Tig

Little girls dream of being princesses. I, for one, was all about She-Ra, Princess of Power. And grown women seem to retain this childhood fantasy. Just look at the pomp and circumstance surrounding the royal wedding and endless conversation about Princess Kate. So when my dear friend, Misan...

web.archive.org

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.



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

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Sometimes you can have all the warning signs for something and still not believe it. When you get hit in the face because it was really that bad and the experience did not live up to your (unrealistic but nevertheless very real) expectations, it can be hard to swallow it and admit someone did try to tell you what it was going to be like. They were just one voice amoung many and not the one you listened to. I feel it's likely both of them are telling one strain of the truth, and do indeed feel really agrieved.

I dont think operah should have taken that interview though. Sounds like a massive cash out publicity stunt made over whipping up public sympathy for one side vs the other; in what was a serries of internal family fights (over nasty/insensative things family members said to each other, and whoes dad pays for what, who is progratis entitled to X for life because they were born into the family etc). Honestly families usually resolve these things internaly. What are we (randoms) doing in the middle of that? Wow that was a pretty immoral/unprincipaled thing to make money off for operah.

It doesnt seem like Harry's family raised him right. If he inherited a title and some of the crowns estates are attached to that title. Then maybe it would have been better to give him the proceeds of those estates and accept that if you didnt raise him to be self sufficient. Than you screwed up, and can take the fall out.

Harry doesn't really inherit anything including titles
His brother does being the oldest

Harry might get some personal property/money if his father wants to leave him something

Like how Diana and the Queen mum left Harry personal property/ money

Harry is basically just a Princesss Margaret

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Here it is - article by Trevor Phillips who was head of the UK’s Commission for Racial Equality and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

“I have too much skin in the game to be neutral about the row sparked this week by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I am a black divorcee in a mixed-race marriage. Like Harry I have fathered two mixed-race children. Their mother is herself of mixed heritage. One daughter has recently given birth to my first grandson, a gorgeous melange of genes from four different continents, whose skin colouring may not be a million shades off Archie’s.

And though I have thankfully never sunk to the despair described by the duchess, our family has spent more than two decades watching helplessly as my older daughter battled a severe eating disorder. Hours before writing these words she and I bade farewell on a familiar threshold: the specialist unit to which she admits herself periodically when the daily struggle against her demons proves just too exhausting.
Add to all this the fact that, like the Sussexes, I have spent more time on the enemy radar of British newspapers than I would have liked, and that legitimate criticism has far too often strayed into racial prejudice that should shame those — on the left and right — who wrote it.
So from whatever point of view, I watched their interview with Oprah Winfrey with a deep sense of sorrow. I think there is some truth in the Sussexes’ accusations. But it could all have been so different. They, not just the palace, bear some responsibility for the blunders and misjudgments of the past three years.

None of us can truly know what the duke and duchess experienced when they talk about the toll on their mental health. I am no professional, and the therapy-speak they use is alien to British ears. But I do know what it feels like to have to pin your teenage child to the floor of a speeding car to prevent her throwing herself out of the door. I understand what it is to hear that she may not live long enough to go to university. I have met the girls with whom she shared the hellish wards reserved for the most distressed, and learnt not to look away when she tells me that I’ll never see one of them again because she has taken her own life. So I don’t take the duchess’s words lightly, even though her Californian vagueness on the subject doesn’t help. In my experience anyone with a diagnosable mental health condition is not only willing but eager to explain precisely what they think is wrong with them.

But it is hard to imagine that any family or firm, no matter how callous, would knowingly ignore such distress, as the duchess alleges happened to her. It puzzles me that the duke, having led the young royals’ Heads Together campaign, could not draw on its resources to support his own wife. This is not scepticism on my part; it is, perhaps, hope that if any good comes from this interview, it is that we become a country in which mental and emotional difficulties that affect so many cease to be silent, forbidden territory.

By contrast, there are no positives to draw from the duchess’s insinuations of racial prejudice within the royal family. Britain now stands in the dock internationally as a breeding ground for casual racial bigotry. Brits will see some irony here. Most of the finger pointing comes from the United States, a country where young black men are frequently gunned down by white police officers; where black families on average have one tenth of the wealth of white households; and where, outside work, people of different colours seldom mix. As for our European neighbours, aside from tiny Malta, people of colour in every EU country are more likely to report racial harassment than here in Britain; rates are over twice as high in Germany, Italy and Ireland.

Trevor Phillips, pictured with his two daughters, has experience of a mixed-race marriage and dealing with family mental health issues

Yet many of the duchess’s supporters have taken her words as confirmation that Britain is an irredeemably and uniquely racist society. The Sussexes told Oprah that there had been “conversations and concern” about the colour of her unborn child’s skin among unnamed royals. Crucially, because Winfrey failed to ask, we have no idea what Harry’s response was. The duchess’s enemies will quibble about the fact that she and Harry differed in their recollections of when and how many times this took place. But I believe what she says. It is almost certain that members of the family speculated about whether the child would look more like his mother or father. Any clan in which that conversation does not take place would be a pretty heartless outfit; even the Addams family were able to lampoon the inevitable cooing over their new baby :
Gomez: “He has my father’s eyes.”
Morticia: “Gomez, take them out of his mouth.”

But as Sir Ken Olisa, a black businessman who serves as the Queen’s lord lieutenant in London observed, we do not know the context or intent of the remarks, which makes all the difference in the world. His own (white) mother-in-law fretted for days about her first grandchild’s likely skin tone: “I just don’t know what colour wool to buy” she said to her daughter. It is equally possible that what Harry experienced was some antediluvian pearl-clutching from one of the royal family’s less sophisticated members. No tribe is without its embarrassing uncles and aunts: Windsor weddings are rich in such individuals. In such a big family, it’s likely there were conversations of both kinds.

Generally speaking, if both parents are Caucasian, there’s not going to be much doubt about skin tone so the talk is of eye and hair colour. Among black families like mine, we ponder other features — quality of hair, shape of the nose, hue of skin. In mixed families, the range of possibilities can be gloriously infinite. Of course, it can feel like a very different conversation depending on who is speaking. And concern might not be for the image of the family, but for the child herself.

The parent or grandparent of a black or mixed-race child knows that no matter how talented, intelligent or spirited your offspring, he or she will face prejudice of some form or another. One of my daughters carries my dark colouring while the other could easily pass for Spanish or Italian. At various times in their lives they have been treated differently by others. Any family that fails to confront the fact that being non-white in a largely white society will influence the life chances of even the most privileged child is simply delusional.

Racism on show in 1970s Britain
ALAMY

But on the evidence presented so far, the royal family looks no more or less prejudiced than any other family in multiracial Britain. However, the same cannot be said of the royal household — the palace bureaucracy. The Prince of Wales may seem an unlikely hero of wokeism but he has had his moments. After the urban riots of 1981 and 1985, Charles decided that his charities needed a more ethnically diverse leadership. One palace adviser suggested that he should take reform a little more slowly; after all, the boards had been monopolised by white Old Etonians so perhaps he should recruit the odd Old Harrovian or Wykehamist before leaping to the product of a Tottenham comprehensive? Charles ignored the advice and went ahead anyway; I became the first black face at his board table.

That said, it should not have been a surprise to anyone that Meghan would face a sometimes hostile press, irrespective of her colour. All female additions to the royal family have had a rough time: Diana, Fergie, Sophie bear witness to that. And who would have changed places with Camilla Parker Bowles in the wake of Diana’s death? Prominent black women, from Shirley Bassey to Diane Abbott, have been targeted at least as often. Meghan is not wrong to call out racism in the British media but it was naive to expect anything else.

Could things have been different? Yes, I think so. Meghan had an admirable pair of role models for being a successful “first black”: Barack and Michelle Obama. Obama’s record in office is middling to average: cautious at home, largely invisible abroad. His limited health reforms were stymied by his lousy succession planning. But none of that mattered. His main task, as far as history is concerned, was to be a successful first black president. By his eloquence, personal dignity and intelligence he effectively neutered race as a barrier to high office in America. In fact, it is unthinkable that in future any party could offer Americans a presidential ticket without at least one person of colour on the ballot. Without Obama there would be no Kamala Harris.

By contrast, Meghan and Harry blew the chance to normalise diversity within the royal family — an epic fail in a country where we have more people of colour in high ministerial office than the whole of the European Union put together. A Conservative administration counts among its top team Priti Patel and Kwasi Kwarteng. The electorate appears utterly undisturbed that the runaway favourite to be our next prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is the son of East African Asians. Each of these people has had to deal with dreadful treatment by the media, and not just the tabloids; Priti Patel’s portrayal as a bull with a ring through her nose by The Guardian was not only more hurtful personally but, in my view, politically far more offensive than anything levelled at Meghan. The duchess lacked a canny, steadying hand to guide and protect her. As chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, a job which guaranteed trouble, my inner team was led by a black woman, Colleen Harris, a veteran of both No 10 and the royal household. Like me, Harris is of Guyanese heritage, leading Prince Charles to christen us the Guyanese mafia. In her first big role, in the Downing Street press office, a reporter inquired “So, if you don’t mind my asking, how black are you?”. She replied crisply “black enough” and put down the phone. Meghan could have done with some of that toughness; and, by the way, it was known to the palace that she was available.

Instead, Meghan has placed a bet on TV therapy. It is a poor gamble. Oprah offered the facsimile of the analyst’s couch without any of the benefits of self- examination. I cannot believe that the couple had no idea what questions would be asked. Surely their deal with the streaming service Netflix would have clauses requiring consultation on the content of such a high-stakes interview. At the very least, Netflix would have wanted to be sure that they gave away nothing that would be of subsequent value.

So what we witnessed felt more like a performance. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This was an encounter between two accomplished actresses, one of them twice Oscar-nominated, brilliantly scripted to convey a narrative that would exalt the couple and bury the royal family. I don’t think it will work out that way. Viewers who did not come to the programme with minds already made up might have wondered why there was no mention of the duchess’s father and half-siblings, whom the Sussexes have allowed the media to present as trailer trash.

And Oprah missed what should have been the most important question of all. When Meghan met Harry, she claims she knew little about him or the royal family. Even so, two facts that most of the world knew about Harry were that he had once worn a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party and that he had called a fellow army officer “my little Paki friend”. He has apologised profusely for both transgressions. But the issue was never raised by Oprah. In a world where far too many communities are divided, the story of how these young lovers managed to get past that history could have been a true moment of openness, generosity and forgiveness. Those qualities are badly needed in a world where, partly thanks to the cesspits of social media, too much bigotry still flourishes.

Instead we were given the Disneyfication of difference. The duke and duchess have fled the poisoned palace, leaving their relatives trapped by its dark intrigues. The account we heard of the past was a black and white story of heroes and villains, of victims and persecutors. But the reality of our modern world is a struggle for understanding between the past and the present, of failed attempts at reconciliation, of trade-offs between justice and tribal self-interest.
The day that Meghan and Harry wed, I believed that they might bring to life Nelson Mandela’s injunction to “let your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears”. The handsome couple baring their souls in a Californian garden wanted us to believe that they had chosen hope. But the truth told by their actions is that their flight to the west coast is really driven by bitterness, anger and fear.”

Thank you so much for posting that

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Son of Queen's former aide-de-camp in Sri Lanka rallies to her defence

Monarch had enduring friendship with Maj Gen Anton Muttukumaru, who worked for her in 1950s

www.theguardian.com

 

[qubitasaurus]

Harry doesn't really inherit anything including titles
His brother does being the oldest

Harry might get some personal property/money if his father wants to leave him something

Like how Diana and the Queen mum left Harry personal property/ money

Harry is basically just a Princesss Margaret

Well then he has a family who organized for him to spend all of his time doing publicity stunts and running arround in military uniforms. Didnt really consider the relevence of a career/professional skill -- beyond his charity work as a royal personage. But also dont seem to have made any concrete provisions for him.

Now he is probably well prepared for looking good on obstacle courses, and has a knack for publicity stunts. But what else is he good at/for? Indeed when concrete choices are made about how to promote his image, they choose puffing arround an obstacle course and tea as his key strengths. Ouch. This is somewhere between being treated as eye candy and a novelty item/tourist attraction to gawk at. And this is the positive part his PR team wanted to promote...

His family is not keen on him continuing to do publicity stunts to promote himself, at their detrement. However this seems like a very visible blind side to have engineered. I can barely see what other skill set he was encouraged to develope -- whoever was planning that future did not do a good job. Admittedly adults are responsible for their own past choices, so he doesnt get of scott free either. But I dont think this was one person or the other in the wrong. Just major disfunctionality. Whoever said above that a whole team quiting like that, almost always signalled a relatively toxic environment was probably spot on.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

Well then he has a family who organized for him to spend all of his time doing publicity stunts and running arround in military uniforms. Didnt really consider the relevence of a career/professional skill -- beyond his charity work as a royal personage. But also dont seem to have made any concrete provisions for him.

Now he is probably well prepared for looking good on obstacle courses, and has a knack for publicity stunts. But what else is he good at/for? Indeed when concrete choices are made about how to promote his image, they choose puffing arround an obstacle course and tea as his key strengths. Ouch. This is somewhere between being treated as eye candy and a novelty item/tourist attraction to gawk at. And this is the positive part his PR team wanted to promote...

His family is not keen on him continuing to do publicity stunts to promote himself, at their detrement. However this seems like a very visible blind side to have engineered. I can barely see what other skill set he was encouraged to develope -- whoever was planning that future did not do a good job. Admittedly adults are responsible for their own past choices, so he doesnt get of scott free either. But I dont think this was one person or the other in the wrong. Just major disfunctionality. Whoever said above that a whole team quiting like that, almost always signalled a relatively toxic environment was probably spot on.

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.