I wonder what their objective was giving this interview.
I’m curious too. I don’t see how airing their grievances with the monarchy helps their brand, and it certainly has to hurt whatever family relationship is left. Did they get paid for this, how much? Like another poster said, I think the only winner here was Oprah and the network.
I’m thinking that there are a lot of people on this thread who have never looked at the racist and mysogonistic stuff written in the British tabloids about Meghan.
They had it out for her at the beginning and if one compares what was written about Kate to what was/is written about Meghan about the very same things, one would be appalled. Pregnancy, ankles crossed, hose, pockets, one-shoulder dresses, wedge heels, trousers - Kate can do no harm.
I believe it was The Mirror that put out an opinion yesterday about the “patriotic actions” of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and them bing better than Harry and Meghan. Apparently being a nazi sympathizer is better than being an American actor.
Anyway, I have no stake in this. My mom was born and raised in England and I have scads of relatives over there. Mom wasn’t much of a monarchist and my cousins and I haven’t ever discussed them.
8 Likes
I heard they were paid a lot. But I don’t have a problem with that.
1 Like
Oprah said to Meghan at the beginning that they were not being paid for the interview. Oprah made a lot of money selling it to CBS.
8 Likes
I hadn’t read any British tabloids comparing Meghan to Kate. I do remember all the stories comparing Fergie to Diana. Fergie wore dreadful fashion and was called The Duchess of Pork when she got very heavy. Fergie was described as uncouth and tawdry while Diana was elegant and ‘shy’ (at least at first). So this is nothing new for the tabloids.
Regarding the title of prince:
Charles and Diana had two two sons, William and Harry. William and Harry have four children between them. The only one entitled to be named a prince is William’s oldest son, George. (See source below) The Queen granted William’s other two children the titles of prince and princess, even though there was no requirement to do so.
I think treating one set of great-grandchildren and grandchildren differently from the other set would cause hurt and problems in most families, and coupled with questions about skin color, a family rift is predictable.
4 Likes
Being treated differently by great-granny is not the same as being titled a prince.
Regardless, there is no indication from Margaret or Anne’s kids that not being a Prince/Princess made them different in the family or impacted their life in any other way.
I will also say that I think this another example of them wanting it both ways as I highly doubt the Firm would have approved the name. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is one thing; Prince Archie would have been a no-go.
4 Likes
I don’t keep up much with the Royal Family, but I do remember reading about the blatant disparity in coverage of Meghan compared with others.
Two headlines from the same publication I did see that illustrates this perfectly:
"Not long to go! Pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave-and William confirms she is due “any minute now.”
“Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: is it pride, vanity, acting-or a new age bonding technique?”
In fact, I remember reading similar comments about Meghan touching her belly on this very website, and I don’t remember the people criticizing her for this applying the same standard to Kate. Maybe they did, but at the time I was really kind of baffled why any woman would have a problem with a pregnant woman putting hands on her abdomen. I have seen countless women in real life doing this and it never occurred to me for one minute to think ill of them.
There are more examples of how the two women were compared in this article:
5 Likes
So Fergie was treated worse than Diana (at least while she was still likely to become queen) and now the same treatment is being given to Meghan versus Kate. The commonality seems to be that the tabloids don’t want to alienate the future queen, but they still need to sell their rags so they pick on the woman who won’t be queen. They will print what sells papers.
3 Likes
I didn’t watch it but read the summaries and my DD gave me the highlights. All of this drama could be put to an end by abolishing the monarchy. It’s long overdue, imo.
3 Likes
I agree there’s an element of “what sells papers” and feeling free to trash because MM isn’t the future queen. At the same time, there’s a give-and-take “deal” that means if the Palace had wanted more positive coverage they could have worked on it. The Royal family is a brand and as a result they can negotiate some coverage in a give and take. There doesn’t seem to have been any “deal” to protect H&M. Perhaps because they’re lesser royals (and that has got to sting for Harry no matter how much he’s accepted he’s nowhere near as valuable as his brother), perhaps because they were supposed to withstand the hazing.
Wrt Fergie, didn’t she do actual uncouth/terribly embarrassing things? (I don’t remember her but if she was compared to Diana it means she was famous during the 80s?)
I’m starting to think the royals are like classy Kardashians with way more rules and constraints and restrictions ruling/ruining their lives and a lifestyle paid for by taxes.
2 Likes
Maybe…or perhaps it’s because she’s an American not of the correct “class”…maybe because she’s divorced…an actress…older than Harry…
Or let’s not pretend it couldn’t at least be in part due to the fact that she has an African American mother, making her of mixed race.
8 Likes
Back in the 1930’s the palace definitely controlled what all newspapers printed. Americans knew that Edward VIII was having an affair with Wallis Simpson before the British knew.
But the Royal Family hasn’t controlled the tabloids since at least the 1980’s or 1990’s. If they did that horrible phone conversation between Charles and Camilla would have been buried. They could do nothing to protect the heir to the throne, the person they most would have wanted to protect.
1 Like
I’m surprised so many Brits still want their hard earned tax dollars to fund this family. I can’t speak for the Queen’s generation, but from a Charles to current, it’s ridiculous. They are just a bunch of entitled, filthy rich people, with tons of dysfunction. They are fun to watch from across the pond, but I’d have a fit if one dollar of mine went to support them. How they still maintain this is baffling.
5 Likes
Perhaps that is why Charles is so eager to trim the royal list, and expenses related thereto, to just the minimum immediate heir and family. The high maintenance cost is likely increasingly unpopular-apparently Meghan didn’t want her $46 million dollar wedding spectacle after all if she preferred a backyard ceremony. Too bad the Treasury can’t get that money back.
4 Likes
Maybe Charles has been trying to give a heads up that the gravy train is going to be over for those that are not senior royals. Trimming the fat seems a reasonable plan going forward.
2 Likes
There’s an article in the Daily Mail (no subscription required). Only the six senior royals get security. The rest get security only while performing royal appearances.
3 Likes
But the Sussex family wants it 24/7, it appears.
1 Like
Here is the link
The 6 being the Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, and Kate. IOW, the monarch, the next 2 in line, and their respective spouses. Harry is 6th in line of succession.
1 Like