So if you were Oprah...

First topic message reminder :

What questions would you ask Harry and Meghan when they do the interview  next month?

"Meghan Markle and husband Prince Harry have agreed to an interview with Oprah Winfrey next month. US network CBS announced: ‘Winfrey will speak with Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, in a wide-ranging interview, covering everything from stepping into life as a Royal, marriage, motherhood, philanthropic work to how she is handling life under intense public pressure. ‘Later, the two are joined by Prince Harry as they speak about their move to the United States and their future hopes and dreams for their expanding family.’ It is not yet clear whether the agreement will have included any ‘no go’ areas, such as discussing individuals in the Royal Family. Meghan is now living with her husband Prince Harry in LA, and the couple announced yesterday that they are expecting a new baby. The Valentine’s Day announcement came with a black and white picture of the smiling couple and the Duchess showing off a slight bump.





"

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/15/meghan-markle-agrees-to-sit-down-interview-with-oprah-winfrey-14086187/?ito=cbshare

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont think he was unhappy pre Meghan. He was surrounded by a loving family, now he is cut off from them all.

People kill for love....he just moved.

He was quoted as saying, 'what Megan wants, Megan gets.'.   One can almost hear the snap of the bag closure around his bollocks.

Being quoted as saying something is not proof that he said it. His words may have been twisted for all we know.
Harry obviously adores his wife. So naturally he would do whatever makes her happy.

But it does not follow that she is the boss in the relationship. It might well be that Harry was equally keen to move away and start a new life.

JulesV wrote:

Syl wrote:Well he is going to be stripped of his honorary military titles, he won't be able to wear his military uniforms either. That's got to hurt.
They will both lose all the official positions granted to them when they married.

No one can take away his title of Prince, he was born a prince, and they will keep the Duke and Dutchess title, but then so did Edward  and Wallis Simpson, and it didn't  do much good for them once they had been separated from the inner workings of the Royals.

Has everyone forgotten that Oprah interviewed Fergie many years ago? A full length no-holds barred interview where Fergie revealed in minute detail about all the people who let her down in the royal family. As the queen's daughter in law, Fergie was closer to the Queen than Meghan ever was, in terms of in status, age and familiarity.

No one made a fuss about Oprah interviewing Fergie. And Fergie kept all her titles! Despite divorcing her husband.

Meghan has not divorced Harry, all she did was move abroad. Meghan did not have her toes sucked in public either lol.

Sarah Ferguson was a huge embarrassment for the royal family back then. That toe sucking incident....all caught on camera, cringeworthy.

I do believe back then there was no help for the women who married into the royal family. Diana was also very vocal about that, but they seem to have learned from their mistakes.
I doubt Meghan had to go through what they did.

Oprah lost all credibility imo when she jumped on the 'me too' bandwagon.

Syl wrote:I think I would ask...'Why, if, as they claimed at the time,  they were leaving the UK to escape the glare of publicity, have they done their best to cultivate careers in America where they are touting themselves about actively looking for media and press attention'?

Ironically enough they actually NEED the glare of publicity in order to promote their humanitarian work and their charities. This is what confuses people.  The couple seem to be contradicting themselves but they aren't.


They don't want their privacy invaded relentlessly .... BUT  it does not mean they want to be 100%private  all the time. They want to be in control of their own level of privacy and reveal the private aspects of their lives on their own terms.. Big difference.


It is reasonable to NOT want a confidential soul-baring letter written to a parent, to be splashed across the newspapers. And to NOT want paparazzi snooping into their homes with their long range cameras.

Harry has always been said to resemble the SPencers. Put a tache and beard on Sarah and you would pretty much have Harry's twin.

Quill, enough of the inane gossip. DNA does not need to be proved.

Harry was adored by everyone, and probably still is.

Mistakes of the past, for example tv interviews, don't need to be repeated.

besides, i'm not sure it's going to do either of them much good in the long run.

Oprah will no doubt pull in the viewers for it but once it's done it's done. what else is there for H&M?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:One theory that is being expounded and which I find persuasive is that Megan - who is, let’s face it, something of a prima donna and greatly revels in her celebrity status in the USA - is bound by protocol to defer to Kate as the future Queen whenever she deigns to visit Britain, much as Wallis Simpson would have been obliged to do after the abdication of Edward VIII and accession of George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

Harry is now well down the Royal pecking order and, I suspect, reflecting the frustration of his wife at being something of a sideshow.

No, Meghan is not a prima donna. Strong willed but not spoilt. Not saying she's a saint, she has her flaws. BUT she has always, always been passionate about humanitarian work on a global scale.

Long before she met Harry she had travelled all over the globe to Africa, India, South America doing unpaid humanitarian work and charitable projects. Even as a child she volunteered to spend christmas days in soup kitchens helping homeless people.  


Given that so many royal marriages have fallen apart, at least the couple have kept theirs going thru thick & thin and numerous challenges.

They are living in the land of the free and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

Mean and uncharitable comments are not called for, let her live her life how she wants - and whatever will be, will be.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:I would ask them when they are moving back to the UK.

I don't think they would be welcomed back here even if they wanted to come back, and Meghan is obviously pulling the strings, so no chance of that.

Three million £££ of taxpayers money was spent on doing up Frogmore cottage, the royal residence where they were to live  which is now housing  a minor royal.

"And now it's being reported that Harry is upset after the Queen agreed he should be stripped of his honorary military titles and patronages.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expected to lose all the official positions they kept after stepping down as working royals last year. Meanwhile Meghan, 39, would have to step down as patron of the National Theatre, which the Queen had previously been for 45 years. "

So....no home in the UK, no titles, hardly even  Royal anymore, which must be a blow to Meghan as she seemed to act more 'Royal' than most of the actual Royals ever have.  





https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/17/prince-harry-upset-after-queen-agrees-he-must-lose-royal-patronages-14095186/

Maybe the Canucks want them?

gekuci wrote:Quill, enough of the inane gossip. DNA does not need to be proved.

Then why raise it?

JulesV wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:One theory that is being expounded and which I find persuasive is that Megan - who is, let’s face it, something of a prima donna and greatly revels in her celebrity status in the USA - is bound by protocol to defer to Kate as the future Queen whenever she deigns to visit Britain, much as Wallis Simpson would have been obliged to do after the abdication of Edward VIII and accession of George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

Harry is now well down the Royal pecking order and, I suspect, reflecting the frustration of his wife at being something of a sideshow.

No, Meghan is not a prima donna. Strong willed but not spoilt. Not saying she's a saint, she has her flaws. BUT she has always, always been passionate about humanitarian work on a global scale.

Long before she met Harry she had travelled all over the globe to Africa, India, South America doing unpaid humanitarian work and charitable projects. Even as a child she volunteered to spend christmas days in soup kitchens helping homeless people.  


Given that so many royal marriages have fallen apart, at least the couple have kept theirs going thru thick & thin and numerous challenges.

They are living in the land of the free and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

Mean and uncharitable comments are not called for, let her live her life how she wants - and whatever will be, will be.

And if they insist on staying in the public eye, they can expect scrutiny.

Want to be left alone? Stay the fuck off of Oprah.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

No, Meghan is not a prima donna. Strong willed but not spoilt. Not saying she's a saint, she has her flaws. BUT she has always, always been passionate about humanitarian work on a global scale.

Long before she met Harry she had travelled all over the globe to Africa, India, South America doing unpaid humanitarian work and charitable projects. Even as a child she volunteered to spend christmas days in soup kitchens helping homeless people.  


Given that so many royal marriages have fallen apart, at least the couple have kept theirs going thru thick & thin and numerous challenges.

They are living in the land of the free and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

Mean and uncharitable comments are not called for, let her live her life how she wants - and whatever will be, will be.

And if they insist on staying in the public eye, they can expect scrutiny.

Want to be left alone? Stay the fuck off of Oprah.  

Who forced you to watch their chats or read their books?
Swerve 'em if you hate 'em.  Easy!

You seem to forget how reviled Fergie was and still is with some of the press. All the stories tearing holes in her for almost anything she did right or wrong.
The fact that Harry and Meghan decided to leave is fine its the way the decided to do it and all that has been said and all the secrecy and mind games that's the problem.
I sure any of the public who cares at all just wants Harry to be happy. So just get on with the humanitarian work - properly recognition will come but don't keep blabbing about how hard done by they are.
As for toe sucking no Meghan doesn't seem to have done that but Fergie hasn't done soft porn photos either as far as we know.

Just another thought, if life was so unbearable in the UK why were Meghan and Harry prepared to divide their time between North America, originally Canada but actually the US all the time, and travel back and fore for engagements and major Royal appearances.

Vintage wrote:You  seem to forget how reviled Fergie was and still is with some of the press. All the stories tearing holes in her for almost anything she did right or wrong.
The fact that Harry and Meghan decided to leave is fine its the way the decided to do it and all that has been said and all the secrecy and mind games that's the problem.
I sure any of the public who cares at all just wants Harry to be happy. So just get on with the humanitarian work - properly recognition will come but don't keep blabbing about how hard done by they are.
As for toe sucking no Meghan doesn't seem to have done that but Fergie hasn't done soft porn photos either as far as we know.

Though I like Fergie, there's no denying her 'crimes' were far worse. Selling access to her husband to a fake sheikh for a suitcase full of cash being the worst.
Yet she kept all her titles and today she's back in the bosom of the royal family, happily living in one of the 'palaces' as if nothing happened.
Even angelic Sophie (Edward's wife) was caught in a similar sting and so she had to resign on the spot. None of them are saints.

I don't visit soft porn channels or look at soft porn pics / movies.  
So if Meghan did any, I wouldn't know - but anyway why should she be judged on things she did BEFORE she married into the royal family?
It's not a question of what these ladies did, it's their status (royal or free agent) at the time they did it.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And if they insist on staying in the public eye, they can expect scrutiny.

Want to be left alone? Stay the fuck off of Oprah.  

Who forced you to watch their chats or read their books?
Swerve 'em if you hate 'em.  Easy!

I don't. But they decide to be news. I'm a consumer of news. I get to decide what I think of them. You can just swerve me too.

I don't understand why we are chicken-scratching to find dirt on Meghan, when all she did is remove her husband, who is beloved by the British (everyone agrees), from harm's way.

We should be finding ways to thank her...her husband does.

Harry is better off out of Britain..Too many sicko failed journalists like Farage, Morgan denigrating them and flying squads of papparazi from the Sun, Express and Mail hunting them down, trying for that lurid shot with an extreme telephoto lens.
Even those tawdry rags can ill afford to keep their hacks on station 24/7/365, 4000 miles from home.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Who forced you to watch their chats or read their books?
Swerve 'em if you hate 'em.  Easy!

I don't. But they decide to be news. I'm a consumer of news. I get to decide what I think of them.



You can just swerve me too.  

You spoke to me.

I replied.

Have a nice day.

Andy wrote:Harry is better off out of Britain..Too many sicko failed journalists  like Farage, Morgan denigrating them  and flying squads of papparazi  from the Sun, Express and Mail hunting them down, trying for that lurid shot with an extreme telephoto  lens.
Even those tawdry rags can ill afford to keep their hacks on station 24/7/365,  4000 miles from home.

The amount of nastiness and gloating and demonisation of this couple in today's daily newspapers, has to be seen to be believed.  

Meghan objected to a very private letter written to a parent being splashed across the tabloids for the whole world to read - and now everyone is raging.


The fact that this couple want to have some degree of public profile does not give the media the divine right to invade their privacy as relentlessly as possible, with nothing being offlimits.

I mean, just because someone is in the public eye (instead of living totally privately like a reclusive hermit) does not mean the paparazzi has a right to point a camera up their butt whilst they are using the loo in their own home.

-----------------------------------------
I  like Meghan and Harry and I wish them well and I hope her pregnancy goes well despite the vicious  way the media is  laying into this pregnant woman - who has just had a miscarriage ffs.

Or maybe the media is determined to see yet another broken marriage, to add to the huge tally of broken royal marriages?  

Que sera sera !

Well it's official now.

I feel for the queen, she loves her grandson so it couldn't have been an easy decision.
However she has always put  duty first family second.....so she had no choice really.


"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been stripped of their prestigious patronages as the couple confirmed Megxit was permanent.

Harry and Meghan wanted to retain their formal roles with the military, arts, Commonwealth and sporting organisations, but were informed they would have to relinquish the posts after talks with the Queen and senior royals.

A source said Harry and Meghan had “absolutely, no question” they wanted to retain the positions they had lost.

“They do respect the decision but they always made clear they were committed to doing the roles,” the source said.

Despite Harry and Meghan confirming their decision to remain in the US for personal and financial freedom, they believed they could still represent the organisations.

A spokesperson for the duke and duchess said, although the formal links have been broken, they have “offered their continued support to the organisations they have represented regardless of official role.

Following conversations with the duke, the Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of the Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service.


The honorary military appointments and royal patronages held by the duke and duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of the royal family."






https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/harry-and-meghan-stripped-of-patronages-they-were-committed-to-supporting/ar-BB1dPLhG?ocid=msedgntp

Original Quill wrote:

gekuci wrote:Quill, enough of the inane gossip. DNA does not need to be proved.

Then why raise it?

Quill, it was YOU who raised it.

JulesV wrote:

Andy wrote:Harry is better off out of Britain..Too many sicko failed journalists  like Farage, Morgan denigrating them  and flying squads of papparazi  from the Sun, Express and Mail hunting them down, trying for that lurid shot with an extreme telephoto  lens.
Even those tawdry rags can ill afford to keep their hacks on station 24/7/365,  4000 miles from home.

The amount of nastiness and gloating and demonisation of this couple in today's daily newspapers, has to be seen to be believed.  

Meghan objected to a very private letter written to a parent being splashed across the tabloids for the whole world to read - and now everyone is raging.


The fact that this couple want to have some degree of public profile does not give the media the divine right to invade their privacy as relentlessly as possible, with nothing being offlimits.

I mean, just because someone is in the public eye (instead of living totally privately like a reclusive hermit) does not mean the paparazzi has a right to point a camera up their butt whilst they are using the loo in their own home.

-----------------------------------------
I  like Meghan and Harry and I wish them well and I hope her pregnancy goes well despite the vicious  way the media is  laying into this pregnant woman - who has just had a miscarriage ffs.

Or maybe the media is determined to see yet another broken marriage, to add to the huge tally of broken royal marriages?  

Que sera sera !

Hey Jules,

I totally agree with your comments re Fergie's greed , Diana was no saint either, Andrew is an embarrassment etc

With regards to the above and ''Meghan's letter''. Firstly, I don't know what there is to rage about but the waters do seem to be muddied slightly by the fact that her own friends talked about it to a magazine first. Thomas Markle said he wanted the DM to print it in order to put his side. It wasn't him that asked people to go talk about it it was his daughter. He wanted to 'put his side of things' and never accepted payment for it.

Also the fact that it seems that certain members of the palace staff had some hand in concocting this letter anyway so sole copyright then becomes blurred.

If it were a case that she wrote the letter entirely on her own,,, her friends had never brought this up,,,,, and the first time anyone heard of it was via the Dm then I think it would be a much more simple outcome

Also, those who want to use the media to up their profile and remain in the news is fine by me, but you can't then complain when that same media writes something that you don't like.

It doesn't work like that.

Finally, Meghan has said that she doesn't bother with social media and any criticism is just noise to her which she can easily block out.

I should imagine they both have better things to do than trawl through media comments and twitter accounts to see what people are saying. The have a bunch of PR staff to block it all out so I don't think she will feel particularly hounded.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then why raise it?

Quill, it was YOU who raised it.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Harry had always lived through this 'bad side' of British public attention.  It wasn't intentional...but nonetheless, it hurt.  Your mother was a harlot, and you are the prize she received for her wanton ways!  Shaming.  Gossip.  Whispers, and all.  Even: I don't believe it, but did you hear...??  Always pointing to him, telling and retelling his story, whether pro or con, and it all occurred, if it occurred, before his birth.  He is not to blame.

Until Meghan came along, he didn't know that he didn't have to put up with it.  His support group was the very family that, deep down, castigated him.  Meghan liberated him, and made him see that, true or not, it wasn't his fault.  She taught him to turn his back, and walk away on his own legs.

It is a success story.  That's how I see it.

The royal family is in the public eye, they are all open to criticism at one time or another. The taxpayer supports their lavish lifestyle, so understandably they expect them to be answerable if they do stupid things.

Having said that, Harry was a popular royal, he always seemed happy, and though obviously the scars of his mothers treatment (murder) must have affected him deeply, he lived a good productive, outward looking life.

Along comes the ambitious naval grazing Meghan, she persuades him that she is being badly treated, no one cares about her, the press, the public, her staff, her relatives....they all look down on her, bringing up her colour and heritage a lot more than anyone else ever did.  
He is persuaded that to escape all the negative attention they should cut themselves off from his loving family and go and live in the US for peace of mind and fulfilment.

That translates to them touting around to the highest bidder (Netflix won) and giving an exclusive interview to their good mate the  publicity hungry, most watched talk show host of all time...Oprah.

Meghans popularity here has plummeted, she comes across as selfish and demanding, he has gone from being a strong minded, successful people person ...  to looking like Meghans lapdog.

And look at what Netflix did with The Crown. The irony being that a Royal is now in financial cahoots with them.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:I was one of those who was pleased Harry had found someone, I had never heard of her or of Suits unfortunately when I watched the engagement interview and saw the celeb style posing, I thought fake and phoney but ok she'll learn - maybe. I never dreamed it would get to where we are now. Others have managed to fit in to Royal families more often than not against the odds, some have not only had to fit into a different culture and the protocol of royal courts but had to learn a new language. I'm just sorry Harry is apparently so weak yet entitled. They were given various ways of living after their marriage and chose to support the Monarch apparently wholeheartedly then did a bunk in a secretive and sly way.

I think it goes back further, to Harry's paternity and his mother Diana's relationship with James Hewitt:

Is Harry even entitled to royal status?  Is he out of Charles' loins?  It doesn't even involve Meghan, but she is caught up in all the 'who is better' whispers because of it.  I think the pair did the right thing in turning their back on all of it.

Harry was born two years before the start of Diana's affair with Hewitt. If you look closely at Harry he's got Charles's crabby close together eyes and other genetic facial markers. Diana's brother is a redhead. I don't think Hewitt is Harry's father. I honestly don't think even Diana would have dared have another man's child as potential heir to the throne of England.

Original Quill wrote:William was over-entitled, and that has burdens of its own.  But William never dealt with abandonment.  That is a special pain, reserved for the unwanted.

Frankly, the only criticism of substance I have heard of Meghan is that she took Harry away from you British...and deservedly so.  I hear adjectives—"navel grazing" and "her well rehearsed monologues" and "nastiness to his family"—but no substance, no specifics.  Frankly, as I see it, adjectives are not arguments.

Who abandoned Harry?

Syl wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Has everyone forgotten that Oprah interviewed Fergie many years ago? A full length no-holds barred interview where Fergie revealed in minute detail about all the people who let her down in the royal family. As the queen's daughter in law, Fergie was closer to the Queen than Meghan ever was, in terms of in status, age and familiarity.

No one made a fuss about Oprah interviewing Fergie. And Fergie kept all her titles! Despite divorcing her husband.

Meghan has not divorced Harry, all she did was move abroad. Meghan did not have her toes sucked in public either lol.

Sarah Ferguson was a huge embarrassment for the royal family back then. That toe sucking incident....all caught on camera, cringeworthy.

I do believe back then there was no help for the women who married into the royal family. Diana was also very vocal about that, but they seem to have learned from their mistakes.
I doubt Meghan had to go through what they did.

Oprah lost all credibility imo when she jumped on the 'me too' bandwagon.

Fergie was a buffoon from the get go. A jolly hockeysticks kinda gal with a personality like a fucking blunderbuss. She managed to shoot herself in the foot, quite literally.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't. But they decide to be news. I'm a consumer of news. I get to decide what I think of them.



You can just swerve me too.  

You spoke to me.

I replied.

Have a nice day.

I'm not suggesting a swerve.

I'm a shitty swerver.

Have a nicer day.

Andy wrote:Harry is better off out of Britain..Too many sicko failed journalists  like Farage, Morgan denigrating them  and flying squads of papparazi  from the Sun, Express and Mail hunting them down, trying for that lurid shot with an extreme telephoto  lens.
Even those tawdry rags can ill afford to keep their hacks on station 24/7/365,  4000 miles from home.

They don't have to. We have folks over here that are obsessed with them too.

HT wrote:Harry was born two years before the start of Diana's affair with Hewitt.

According to some...  

Most of those alleged facts come from Ken Wharfe, Diana's protection officer, who wrote in his book, Diana: Closely Guarded Secret, that they met at a party thrown by her lady-in-waiting, Hazel West.  But Wharfe was known to engineer the truth about events, to protect his friends and skew timelines.

Wharfe says that Diana was shy around horses, and she took up with Hewitt (a cavalry officer) who was to teach her to get comfortable with them.  What’s shaky about this story is that Diana grew up on a country estate and was around horses all the time.  She was said to love animals.  Here's a pic in her teens:


It has the smell of a story made up after the fact, to put the James and Diana meeting long after they really did meet.  A DNA test would clear all this up.  Strange that they haven't thought of that.

In any event, I don't care one way or the other about Harry's lineage.  The rumor is out there and the gossipers will gossip.  Perhaps it's inevitable.

I'm for defending Meghan, and her noble purpose of removing her husband from a society that has hurt him so.  He's much happier in America, and she is responsible for that.

Original Quill wrote:

HT wrote:Harry was born two years before the start of Diana's affair with Hewitt.

According to some...  

Most of those alleged facts come from Ken Wharfe, Diana's protection officer, who wrote in his book, Diana: Closely Guarded Secret, that they met at a party thrown by her lady-in-waiting, Hazel West.  But Wharfe was known to engineer the truth about events, to protect his friends and skew timelines.

Wharfe says that Diana was shy around horses, and she took up with Hewitt (a cavalry officer) who was to teach her to get comfortable with them.  What’s shaky about this story is that Diana grew up on a country estate and was around horses all the time.  She was said to love animals.  Here's a pic in her teens:

It has the smell of a story made up after the fact, to put the James and Diana meeting long after they really did meet.  A DNA test would clear all this up.  Strange that they haven't thought of that.

In any event, I don't care one way or the other about Harry's lineage.  The rumor is out there and the gossipers will gossip.  Perhaps it's inevitable.

I'm for defending Meghan, and her noble purpose of removing her husband from a society that has hurt him so.  He's much happier in America, and she is responsible for that.

They will be divorced in 5 years and Harry will be back in the UK without his kids and begging for some of his former nobility.

I think you might be right there MD...

Original Quill wrote:
Wharfe says that Diana was shy around horses, and she took up with Hewitt (a cavalry officer) who was to teach her to get comfortable with them.  What’s shaky about this story is that Diana grew up on a country estate and was around horses all the time.  She was said to love animals.
.....

Yes Quill, she did grow up in the open country among horses and she did love  animals very much.

HOWEVER she suffered a nasty childhood fall from a horse - which triggered a lifelong phobia of horses and she never rode again. Mr Wharfe was not lying. Her phobia of horse-riding was extensively discussed in the papers cos the queen wanted to go riding with her but she refused.

Hewitt was probably assigned to give her the confidence to get back on a horse, NOT to teach her to ride, from scratch  ..... and I will resist the urge to make a dirty innuendo here.

gelico wrote:

Hey Jules,
I totally agree with your comments re Fergie's greed , Diana was no saint either, Andrew is an embarrassment etc

With regards to the above and ''Meghan's letter''.  Firstly, I don't know what there is to rage about but the waters do seem to be muddied slightly by the fact that her own friends talked about it to a magazine first.  Thomas Markle said he wanted the DM to print it in order to put his side.  It wasn't him that asked people to go talk about it it was his daughter.  He wanted to 'put his side of things' and never accepted payment for it.

Also the fact that it seems that certain members of the palace staff had some hand in concocting this letter anyway so sole copyright then becomes blurred.

If it were a case that she wrote the letter entirely on her own,,, her friends had never brought this up,,,,, and the first time anyone heard of it was via the Dm then I think it would be a much more simple outcome

Also, those who want to use the media to up their profile and remain in the news is fine by me, but you can't then complain when that same media writes something that you don't like.

It doesn't work like that.

Finally, Meghan has said that she doesn't bother with social media and any criticism is just noise to her which she can easily block out.

I should imagine they both have better things to do than trawl through media comments and twitter accounts to see what people are saying.  The have a bunch of PR staff to block it all out so I don't think she will feel particularly hounded.

Hi gels. Very true indeed. None of them are saints, they are all human. Princess Margaret ran around with all sorts of debauched gangsters and led a very wild hedonistic lifestyle. Princess Anne was a rebel who had red blooded love affairs before marriage, one of her lovers was Camilla's ex husband, ironically.

Anne's daughter Zara is very close to her granny the queen but when she got married she went behind the queen's back and did a secret deal with HELLO magazine which paid her a very fat fee to splash photos of the wedding in their mag. The queen was said to be mortified b/c of course she was at the wedding and let's face it, it was a very common, vulgar thing for a royal to do.


-------------------------------------------------------
Harry & Meghan are gone now,  their titles and ceremonial roles were removed, and some folks might feel a gleeful satisfaction  ..... but alas it's only the beginning.  People smell blood and now haters will immediately go after poor Kate & William - then they will go after Charles & Camilla. Anti-royalists are working their way up the list! There are several separate lobby groups which want to make sure that the current queen is the last ever monarch.

The queen is beloved and she has never put a foot wrong but sadly she won't live for ever - and when she finally passes, oh boy,  watch those antimonarchy groups swing into action.  > > > https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1397723/Prince-William-news-Duke-of-Cambridge-Kate-Middleton-Royal-Family-titles-Queen-latest-vn

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

According to some...  

Most of those alleged facts come from Ken Wharfe, Diana's protection officer, who wrote in his book, Diana: Closely Guarded Secret, that they met at a party thrown by her lady-in-waiting, Hazel West.  But Wharfe was known to engineer the truth about events, to protect his friends and skew timelines.

Wharfe says that Diana was shy around horses, and she took up with Hewitt (a cavalry officer) who was to teach her to get comfortable with them.  What’s shaky about this story is that Diana grew up on a country estate and was around horses all the time.  She was said to love animals.  Here's a pic in her teens:

It has the smell of a story made up after the fact, to put the James and Diana meeting long after they really did meet.  A DNA test would clear all this up.  Strange that they haven't thought of that.

In any event, I don't care one way or the other about Harry's lineage.  The rumor is out there and the gossipers will gossip.  Perhaps it's inevitable.

I'm for defending Meghan, and her noble purpose of removing her husband from a society that has hurt him so.  He's much happier in America, and she is responsible for that.

They will be divorced in 5 years and Harry will be back in the UK without his kids and begging for some of his former nobility.  

Funnily enough, I said this to my husband this morning. I give it five years.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:
Sarah Ferguson was a huge embarrassment for the royal family back then. That toe sucking incident....all caught on camera, cringeworthy.

I do believe back then there was no help for the women who married into the royal family. Diana was also very vocal about that, but they seem to have learned from their mistakes.
I doubt Meghan had to go through what they did.

Oprah lost all credibility imo when she jumped on the 'me too' bandwagon.

Fergie was a buffoon from the get go.  

A jolly hockeysticks kinda gal with a personality like a fucking blunderbuss

.   She managed to shoot herself in the foot, quite literally.  

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

The royal family is in the public eye, they are all open to criticism at one time or another. The taxpayer supports their lavish lifestyle, so understandably they expect them to be answerable if they do stupid things.

Having said that, Harry was a popular royal, he always seemed happy, and though obviously the scars of his mothers treatment (murder) must have affected him deeply, he lived a good productive, outward looking life.

Along comes the ambitious naval grazing Meghan, she persuades him that she is being badly treated, no one cares about her, the press, the public, her staff, her relatives....they all look down on her, bringing up her colour and heritage a lot more than anyone else ever did.  
He is persuaded that to escape all the negative attention they should cut themselves off from his loving family and go and live in the US for peace of mind and fulfilment.

That translates to them touting around to the highest bidder (Netflix won) and giving an exclusive interview to their good mate the  publicity hungry, most watched talk show host of all time...Oprah.

Meghans popularity here has plummeted, she comes across as selfish and demanding, he has gone from being a strong minded, successful people person ...  to looking like Meghans lapdog.

And look at what Netflix did with The Crown.     The irony being that a Royal is now in financial cahoots with them.

Not much loyalty from their side is there?
The last series of the Crown, highlighting Diana's relationships with the Royals,  was a bit farcical....I did watch it though.

Harry is now said to be self-isolating with just his wife and child in case he has to rush home suddenly for Prince Philips funeral.

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Wharfe says that Diana was shy around horses, and she took up with Hewitt (a cavalry officer) who was to teach her to get comfortable with them.  What’s shaky about this story is that Diana grew up on a country estate and was around horses all the time. She was said to love animals.
.....

Yes Quill, she did grow up in the open country among horses and she did love  animals very much.

HOWEVER she suffered a nasty childhood fall from a horse - which triggered a lifelong phobia of horses and she never rode again. Mr Wharfe was not lying.  Her phobia of horse-riding was extensively discussed in the papers cos the queen wanted to go riding with her but she refused.

Hewitt was probably assigned to give her the confidence to get back on a horse, NOT to teach her to ride, from scratch  ..... and I will resist the urge to make a dirty innuendo here.

Ehhh...see, that's one of those soft facts, that can be stretched.  I've worked on ranches in my youth, and you don't sit around whimpering about a fall off your horse.  If anything, you get back on!  Even if you broke a collar bone...you get back on.

Wharfe wasn’t even there at the time of the fall, or for long after…it’s all hearsay to him!  Wharfe exaggerated the claim of Diana’s so-called phobia, I believe, to marginalize the romantic presence of Hewitt in Diana’s life.  If Hewett was serving a mundane, practical purpose, he wasn't serving a romantic purpose. Wharfe's whole book is to minimize the impact of Hewitt on history, when everyone knew about the affair.  Pshawww....

Original Quill wrote:

JulesV wrote:
Yes Quill, she did grow up in the open country among horses and she did love  animals very much.

HOWEVER she suffered a nasty childhood fall from a horse - which triggered a lifelong phobia of horses and she never rode again. Mr Wharfe was not lying.  Her phobia of horse-riding was extensively discussed in the papers cos the queen wanted to go riding with her but she refused.

Hewitt was probably assigned to give her the confidence to get back on a horse, NOT to teach her to ride, from scratch  ..... and I will resist the urge to make a dirty innuendo here.

Ehhh...see, that's one of those soft facts, that can be stretched.  I've worked on ranches in my youth, and you don't sit around whimpering about a fall off your horse.  If anything, you get back on!  Even if you broke a collar bone...you get back on.

Wharfe wasn’t even there at the time of the fall, or for long after…it’s all hearsay to him!  Wharfe exaggerated the claim of Diana’s so-called phobia, I believe, to marginalize the romantic presence of Hewitt in Diana’s life.  If Hewett was serving a mundane, practical purpose, he wasn't serving a romantic purpose. Wharfe's whole book is to minimize the impact of Hewitt on history, when everyone knew about the affair.  Pshawww....

So Wharfe is loyal to the monarchy. Not a big deal. Most retired employees are fiercely loyal. Additionally they are bound by law to limit what they say.

Hard to believe Harry's paternity is still an issue after all these decades. Even CT diehards know that the most elite family in the land has access to paternity testing facilities. Harry is a Windsor, period!

Maddog wrote:I would ask them when they are moving back to the UK.

The Texas Charity to which Harry & Meghan just made a timely donation would probably not ask that!
Texans would instead ask Cruz why he fucked off to Cancun to frolic in the sun at such an inappropriate time. Then he plunged further depths by blaming his kids - his wife's leaked texts told a different story lol.

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ehhh...see, that's one of those soft facts, that can be stretched. I've worked on ranches in my youth, and you don't sit around whimpering about a fall off your horse. If anything, you get back on! Even if you broke a collar bone...you get back on.

Wharfe wasn’t even there at the time of the fall, or for long after…it’s all hearsay to him! Wharfe exaggerated the claim of Diana’s so-called phobia, I believe, to marginalize the romantic presence of Hewitt in Diana’s life. If Hewett was serving a mundane, practical purpose, he wasn't serving a romantic purpose. Wharfe's whole book is to minimize the impact of Hewitt on history, when everyone knew about the affair. Pshawww....

So Wharfe is loyal to the monarchy. Not a big deal. Most retired employees are fiercely loyal. Additionally they are bound by law to limit what they say.

Hard to believe Harry's paternity is still an issue after all these decades. Even CT diehards know that the most elite family in the land has access to paternity testing facilities. Harry is a Windsor, period!

I think Meghan is figuring—hoping, perhaps—that the move to America will distance Harry from the hurtful talk...or, if not the talk, the judgment. People care less off-island.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They will be divorced in 5 years and Harry will be back in the UK without his kids and begging for some of his former nobility.  

Funnily enough, I said this to my husband this morning.   I give it five years.  

I don't know about you and Maddog but I know that many of us on forums are divorcees, as is the general population. It happens!

There has been an absurdly high proportion of divorces among the Queen's closest relatives too, including 3 of her 4 children.
You have to go back over 500 years to the reign of Henry 8th to find an incidence of a British king or heir divorcing, like Prince Charles did to Diana. So let's not be too hasty in trying to make those statistics even worse by wishing divorce on this couple.

I doubt the monarchy will even be around in 5 years. A very watered-down version, maybe.
Harry & Meghan cut loose and went their own way. Rebellious behaviour? Yes. Scandalous? No !

Original Quill wrote:

JulesV wrote:

So Wharfe is loyal to the monarchy. Not a big deal.    Most retired employees are fiercely loyal. Additionally they are bound by law to limit what they say.

Hard to believe Harry's paternity is still an issue after all these decades.     Even CT diehards know that the most elite family in the land has access to paternity testing facilities. Harry is a Windsor, period!

I think Meghan is figuring—hoping, perhaps—that the move to America will distance Harry from the hurtful talk...or, if not the talk, the judgment.  People care less off-island.

You have the wrong idea of how Harry was thought of in the UK.
The MAJORITY of the people were either not that interested in the Royal family, or supported them, and Harry was one of the most popular Royals.
William got some stick, as did 'Waity Katie' his now wife who was made fun of for years because she hung around waiting for William to propose marriage. Her parents were also criticised, as was her sister.

Harry had a couple of serious relationships before Meghan and he was left in peace, when he met Meghan the public supported them both.....they celebrated his engagement and marriage.
Unfortunately, things went wrong from then on, thanks to Meghans attitude....at least that is how it seems to the majority.

Obviously you nor I are privvy to everything that goes on inside closed doors.

Syl wrote:Harry was one of the most popular Royals.

Harry was popular everywhere. It doesn't matter. People still make judgments.

One can be the nicest, most wonderful guy in the world, and if he is a bastard people will whisper and judge. Actually, it doesn't involve Harry, so he can do nothing to change it...that's the damnable thing. If anything, the biological father was the asshole, but the son forever has the red mark on his forehead.

It's very hurtful, and I believe Meghan just wanted to remove Harry to a place where people cared less.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Harry was one of the most popular Royals.

Harry was popular everywhere.  It doesn't matter.  People still make judgments.

One can be the nicest, most wonderful guy in the world, and if he is a bastard people will whisper and judge.  Actually, it doesn't involve Harry, so he can do nothing to change it...that's the damnable thing.  If anything, the biological father was the asshole, but the son forever has the red mark on his forehead.

It's very hurtful, and I believe Meghan just wanted to remove Harry to a place where people cared less.

Quill, you seem to care more than anyone else here...and poor Harry has moved to your country.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think Meghan is figuring—hoping, perhaps—that the move to America will distance Harry from the hurtful talk...or, if not the talk, the judgment.  People care less off-island.

You have the wrong idea of how Harry was thought of in the UK.
The MAJORITY of the people were either not that interested in the Royal family, or supported them, and Harry was one of the most popular Royals.
William got some stick, as did 'Waity Katie' his now wife who was made fun of for years because she hung around waiting for William to propose marriage. Her parents were also criticised, as was her sister.

Harry had a couple of serious relationships before Meghan and he was left in peace, when he met Meghan the public supported them both.....they celebrated his engagement and marriage.
Unfortunately, things went wrong from then on, thanks to Meghans attitude....at least that is how it seems to the majority.

Obviously you nor I are privvy to everything that goes on inside closed doors.

I thought Harry was the one I'd like to have beers with. I know most Brits felt the same. Harry's problems started with that damm septic woman.

Apparently the interview had to be re done.

to begin with the Queen had emailed confirming their wish to stay where they are and not to come back to uk. she also confirmed that the patronages would no longer be theirs (they were held in abeyance anyway). despite this H&M did the interview as though they were still working royals and their plans on how they would represent her majesty in the future yada yada.

Only once that had been leaked to press, they all had to cancel it cos it would've looked ridiculous.

Now it seems she is going to focus on the fall out with her dad and her sister

I've never watched the Oprah show in my life

Can't imagine making any exception for this tbh

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Harry was popular everywhere.  It doesn't matter.  People still make judgments.

One can be the nicest, most wonderful guy in the world, and if he is a bastard people will whisper and judge.  Actually, it doesn't involve Harry, so he can do nothing to change it...that's the damnable thing.  If anything, the biological father was the asshole, but the son forever has the red mark on his forehead.

It's very hurtful, and I believe Meghan just wanted to remove Harry to a place where people cared less.

Quill, you seem to care more than anyone else here...and poor Harry has moved to your country.

I think the guy is terrific. I think people here don't know what the guy has been through, and so project causation of the disaffection onto Meghan. They minimize, even dismiss the hurt to Harry, and go on about how the problem must have originated with Meghan.

We don't know what went on in the inner circle, but my guess is that he was the red-headed stepchild ("a child who is obviously not your own, a child who is treated worse than other children in the family"). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=red%20headed%20stepchild

Since no one else will, Meghan is taking on the problem. I see what she sees.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Quill, you seem to care more than anyone else here...and poor Harry has moved to your country.

I think the guy is terrific.  I think people here don't know what the guy has been through, and so project causation of the disaffection onto Meghan.  They minimize, even dismiss the hurt to Harry, and go on about how the problem must have originated with Meghan.

We don't know what went on in the inner circle, but my guess is that he was the red-headed stepchild ("a child who is obviously not your own, a child who is treated worse than other children in the family").  https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=red%20headed%20stepchild  

Since no one else will, Meghan is taking on the problem.  I see what she sees.  

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Quill, you seem to care more than anyone else here...and poor Harry has moved to your country.

We don't know what went on in the inner circle, but my guess is that he was the red-headed stepchild ("a child who is obviously not your own, a child who is treated worse than other children in the family").  https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=red%20headed%20stepchild  

Since no one else will, Meghan is taking on the problem.  I see what she sees.  

lolol

reality check:

Harry was always the darling of the family. Clearly not overly bright in the academia field but so what. He was always the rebel, the party lad, the one getting drunk surrounded by a bevy of beauties. He was spoilt and indulged by his family. Adored by everyone to the point where excuses were being made for his somewhat outlandish behaviour on occasions.

For some reason you seem desperate to see him as the lonely, bastard outcast of the family. Abused and unloved until he met Saint Meghan.

you have such a strange little mind Quill

it doth amuse me at times

At a loss for word, eh?

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



We don't know what went on in the inner circle, but my guess is that he was the red-headed stepchild ("a child who is obviously not your own, a child who is treated worse than other children in the family").  https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=red%20headed%20stepchild  

Since no one else will, Meghan is taking on the problem.  I see what she sees.  

lolol

reality check:

Harry was always the darling of the family.  Clearly not overly bright in the academia field but so what.  He was always the rebel, the party lad, the one getting drunk surrounded by a bevy of beauties.  He was spoilt and indulged by his family.  Adored by everyone to the point where excuses were being made for his somewhat outlandish behaviour on occasions.

For some reason you seem desperate to see him as the lonely, bastard outcast of the family.  Abused and unloved until he met Saint Meghan.

you have such a strange little mind Quill

it doth amuse me at times

Doesn't he?

Harry's problems started with Meghan. No idea where Quill's started.