I would have hoped we’ve evolved to not repeat the misogyny of the '80s. Just because Fergie endured grief 30-40 years ago doesn’t mean Meghan is obligated to in 2021.
11 Likes
My interpretation of Meghans interview was that at the time she was pregnant ( and her and Harry where still major Royals) the protocol dictated that Archie would be given the title of Prince and the security when Charles became King. However at that time they where talking about changing that protocol so that Archie wouldn’t get that.
The press seems to be confusing that with the family’s loss of titles after they quit but she was specifically talking about the time when she was still pregnant, way before that.
The couples racism charge implied that “the firm” changed protocol to prevent Archie being a Prince because he might be black looking ie failed the paper bag test. However real the reason might be totally innocent like sliming down and reallocating the taxpayers money to other causes and Archie just happened to have been created on the wrong side of the timeline.
4 Likes
I think this is a very interesting situation. Some people are outraged about the questions about the skin color of the baby but I think it’s hard to judge without knowing the context in which the questions were asked. Clearly, there were racial bias but that does not necessarily mean that the question was posed with malicious intention. Many of us on this board are concerned with sending our children to schools in various regions of the country. Will they feel comfortable if they are in the minority in terms of race or religion? Or simply a Northerner in the South or West Coast versus East Coast. Obviously, the racial implications are much more egregious but asking a question is different than being racist. I’m in an inter-faith marriage and believe me family members on both sides asked many questions that I found questionable or with an anti-Semitic bias. That doesn’t mean they don’t accept my marriage or love my kids. They were just ignorant questions.
That being said, the media was completely racist and horrible to Meghan. The Royal Family should absolutely have put a stop or commented on the horribly racist stories written about her.
9 Likes
This is my opinion. I think that the Sussexes were told exactly why their children were not going to be titled. It was explained and it was clear. THEY decided to bring in the race card. It’s very unfair to bring in something that wasn’t the intention of the decision that the royals were making.
8 Likes
Could it be that they were defending themselves from all the lies (racist and otherwise)put out by the tabloids with the palace’s tacit approval? Do the death threats to Meghan and their child(ren) not justify a response? From all the hateful statements on this thread, apparently not.
To the posters who so casually talk about Meghan’s “lies and half-truths” I say BALDERDASH. You cannot provide evidence of a single lie she told because there isn’t any.
It’s so curious, the level of outright hatred so many here have for this woman. After all, no one wearing an expensive dress could possibly suffered mental health problems from public bullying and lies, right? She HAS to be lying about suicidal ideation. I sincerely hope no one in your families ever suffers from depression or worse; they will know that their pain will be dismissed as “attention seeking” and won’t ever dare ask for help.
Of course maybe there’s another reason for all the scorn directed at Ms Markle.
16 Likes
Stop pretending anyone who criticizes the couple are racists. Unwarranted and unfounded. Of course the members of the royal family have death threats, they always have, from the IRA and others. The kidnap attempt on Princess Anne, the murder of Lord Mountbatten- that is why some have declined marrying into the family.
An example of a lie-her claim she knew little about the royal family and didn’t research. But her first bridesmaid says Meghan was obsessed with the royals, read all the books about them, and they watched Diana’s wedding together repeatedly.
Such a minor thing, why did Meghan feel a need to lie about it? Lots of young girls were obsessed over superstar Diana and wanted to be her, there is no shame in that.
10 Likes
But it’s impossible that the bridesmaid was lying, or misquoted or even that her statement was completely fabricated? That’s not much evidence of M Markle telling a lie; even if it was it’s so trivial that it really has no bearing on the level of abuse directed her way.
It’s just so odd that so many feel it’s important to attack this couple in order to defend the royal family. The royal family’s sole purpose is to prop up and maintain the British class system. That is surely not a good thing.
Why not direct all this ire at Prince Andrew and his grifter ex-wife Fergie? They at least are confirmed as being wildly shady.
7 Likes
Did I miss the interview they did with Oprah? Fergie was on the receiving end of quite a bit of tabloid vitriol and criticism back in the day.
In my opinion Andrew does deserve criticism and I don’t agree with the Palace protecting him. He also isn’t out running a PR campaign and bad mouthing his family.
3 Likes
No love for the royal family from me, either, but I resent being lied to. It is a trivial point, but it is indicative of her approach to the interview. The srmi-authorized biography, Finding Freedom, says both Harry and Meghan did extensive research on each other. But I suppose you think those are lies too. Everyone but Meghan?
3 Likes
The royal family’s purpose is to promote Great Britain particularly British tourism.
When Harry married Meghan I thought she would be a great addition bringing diversity and relatability to the royals, a real asset.
Charles walked her down the aisle. The Queen looked delighted seeing Archie.
Now they seem like complainers and didn’t get the stories straight. She said the skin color comment was made while she was pregnant. Harry said it was before they got married.
6 Likes
To be fair, I could see the comment being made to HIM while they were dating and to HER when she was pregnant.
7 Likes
My gut tells me there were a series of micro aggressions directed at Meghan and Harry that led to open conflict.
The first incident of open conflict I recall involved selection of a bridal tiara from among the queen’s collection.
That story did not sit right with me at the time.
3 Likes
There seem to be conflicting takes on the whole tiara issue.
Meghan also said that there where multiple occasions where her babies skin colour was discussed. Maybe Harry did talk about the other times on camera but the clips didn’t make the final cut. Maybe that first time just suck with him harder.
What made me question the initial tiara conflict story was the notion of the queen failing to present an approved selection of choices.
The queen is intelligent and experienced. She would have made the terms of her tiara loan offer clear.
Also, reports of Meghan’s alleged insistence and Harry’s alleged explosive reaction to refusal of a particular tiara require a daunting leap into unimaginable territory.
Doesn’t Prince Harry have a much larger public presence than other royals? Even Eugenie and Beatrice are not in the press as much or looked at as the face of the royal family the way Harry always has been. That also make him and Meghan more likely targets. The Queen funds security for her son Andrew but neither she or Charles funds (even partially)that for Harry and his family.
3 Likes
The Daily Mail article provided above shows the official engagements for royals in 2019, the last normal year. Harry at 201, Meghan at 83. Harry was about the same as his brother, Meghan substantially less than Kate. None of them come close to Anne’s 500 public appearances on behalf of the crown.
The Sussex family has a $100 million deal with Netflix. They can afford their own security.
2 Likes
Meghan graduated from Northwestern with a double major in Theatre and International Studies…hmmm…just saying…
1 Like
The interview was done as a form of self-marketing. The Sussexes could have emigrated to the US or Canada on Harry’s 13 million inheritance from his mother; they could have lived a secure and dignified, if obscure, life, and educated their children to be independent of the royal family. After the dust settled, they would have been left alone, because basically they are not that interesting as individuals. But they wouldn’t be able to hobnob with the 1 percent and the entertainment elite on that kind of money, so they have to find ways to 1) maintain and 2) monetize their celebrity. The foundation grift is one way to do that, as is the lifestyle influencer route.
Harry was the “spare” when he was born, and now he is even more superfluous to the family because William has three children who come before him in the line of succession. He seems to find it impossible to live happily in relative obscurity like his cousins. It’s unfortunate that his mother is the object of cult veneration and he grew up in a limelight that second sons generally don’t receive. I think this makes it hard for him to accept his diminished prospects as an adult. He should have stayed in the army and advanced in his career as an officer. Then he would have his own “thing,” his own ethos apart from either one of his parents.
11 Likes
@NJSue I think you hit the nail on the head. When they were younger, before William married Kate, Harry seemed to be more the media darling. Everyone was wild about Harry. Then William married Kate and she became a star and her star power rubbed off on William. Then came the oh-so-cute kids.
One day William will inherit Sandringham and Balmoral (the privately owned residences) and will live in Windsor and Buckingham Palace. William will be on all the stamps. He will host foreign dignitaries. He will open Parliament. And where will Harry be?
1 Like