Meghan and Harry Interview (Mod Warning in First Post)

Cienciano

Seems that the attitude in America is the Royal Family is a toxic institution. And in UK it's Meghan that's the problem.

BettyS

Cienciano wrote: »

Seems that the attitude in America is the Royal Family is a toxic institution. And in UK it's Meghan that's the problem.

I am surprised it hasn’t been made a partisan issue in the US yet

Coybig_

Icsics wrote: »

Interesting no questions at all about her father or estranged family. He’s really thrown his family under the bus

Her and broken relationships seem to go hand in hand at this point.

After you manage to fall out with virtually your entire family, and your first marriage fails, then you manage to fall out with your new husbands family to the point where they effectively disown the pair of you - maybe it's time to start looking inward.

BettyS

meeeeh wrote: »

She is beautiful American biracial Princess. Their ability to make money is significant. I don't think they needed to do the interview I think they wanted to do the interview.

Anyway the most entertaining part of this is British media meltdown. BoJo could probably increase taxes for 50% and it would end up somewhere on page 6.

She is beautiful, yes. However, there are any number of talented and beautiful women in LA. The concept of the monarchy was just some obscure, quirky and British institution.

They were relatively unknown. This will generate significant exposure and interest. This in turn will generate more opportunities. Opportunities will generate revenue. They have put themselves forward as the champion of the persecuted underdog.

You cannot pretend that there were no benefits to the interview for them?!? It was a carefully calculated move

Cienciano

Cienciano wrote: »

Seems that the attitude in America is the Royal Family is a toxic institution. And in UK it's Meghan that's the problem.

I wonder how much of people's perceptions have been shaped by TV series like The Crown.

Kaybaykwah

BettyS wrote: »

Googling some of Prince Philip’s quotes from over the years is shocking

Stiff Upper Philip coming soon to a cemetary near you.

Northernlily

Coybig_ wrote: »

Her and broken relationships seem to go hand in hand at this point.

After you manage to fall out with virtually your entire family, and your first marriage fails, then you manage to fall out with your new husbands family to the point where they effectively disown the pair of you - maybe it's time to start looking inward.

Objectively speaking, her family have shown themselves as fairly disfunctional.

Same thing has probably led to some of the hostilities in the new husbands family. "Not one of us" etc.

BettyS

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder how much of people's perceptions have been shaped by TV series like The Crown.

The book “And What Do You Do” came out recently. It is pretty shocking stuff. Does not paint the monarchy in a good light at all. I was always surprised that it wasn’t peddled by the media

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder how much of people's perceptions have been shaped by TV series like The Crown.

Why d'ya axe?

They bin lovin' and hatin' Chump fer 4 years.

UsBus

Am behind on my Netflix, but have been watching Suits from the start the last while. Every now and then I'd say Christ, Harry the poor fecker, while watching MM. The other half would tell me, she's only playing a part. To which i'd reply, she's not that good of an actor.
Whatever about not wanting to be part of the Royal circus and all that entails is perfectly understandable. Harry has really walked himself to the edge of the cliff with this one.
Can see him on his todd in a few years, trying to patch up with his family.

As someone else pointed out, how naïve was she to believe she could go from her privileged modern lifestyle as an actor in the US and settle into the goldfish bowl of the Royal family..?
Harry probably didn't let her know how it would be for fear of her changing her mind.

I’d like to know what the Archbishop makes of the secret wedding.

Anniepowaaa

when you go on tv for a big wad of cash you have no credibility in my eyes

meeeeh

BettyS wrote: »

You cannot pretend that there were no benefits to the interview for them?!? It was a carefully calculated move

I didn't say that. I think they were so intent on settling the scores they would do it even if there was no financial benefit. It's way more personal than just making money.

As for their monetary value, this is supposed to be watched by more people than Super Bowl, it tells you all about their ability to make money. They would be fine flogging some vegan coffees and Netflix stuff.

Be right back

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’d like to know what the Archbishop makes of the secret wedding.

Why would they have had to get married before their church wedding?

BettyS

meeeeh wrote: »

I didn't say that. I think they were so intent on settling the scores they would do it even if there was no financial benefit. It's way more personal than just making money.

As for their monetary value, this is supposed to be watched by more people than Super Bowl, it tells you all about their ability to make money. They would be fine flogging some vegan coffees and Netflix stuff.

Their ability to draw viewers was not based on themselves as people. It was based on them breaking the tradition of silence about the inner-workings of the monarchy. People were anticipating a spilling of salacious gossip about the monarchy.

By your comment, if they went on Oprah to discuss general and impersonal topics, they would have had the same viewing! I don’t think so!

People just wanted the dirt!

Itssoeasy

I read more of the comments from the interview and some of the quotes don’t help them. Why is Harry surprised that he’s been cut off financially(I assume this is the civil list money) when he’s no longer a working member of the royal family. Also, the comment about Archie not being a Prince is a sign they don’t know the rules(stupid as they may be) that he isn’t by birth entitled to one. Neither were Williams kids until it was changed. So it’s got nothing to do with race or anything else it’s one of the many weird rules that make up the bizarre institution that is the British royal family. The person who made the comment about skin colour like I said this morning should’ve been named. I agree it would be very harmful for that person but by not saying who it is leaves it open.

Snickers Man

[Snip]Off Topic[Snip]

Mod: Please read the forum charter before posting

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’d like to know what the Archbishop makes of the secret wedding.

I tweeted him to ask.
Nicely of course.

The whole we were already married when we got married thing is frankly a little out there!
It's so easily refutable by the simple fact there was just 3 of them.
A wedding requires at least 5 including 2 witnesses.

They may have had a run through, exchanged meaningful vows or something.
But!
Being so adamant that they were married in secret, prior to the state spunking £30odd million on a then meaningless ceremony?

It won't help win friends or influence people.
Now imagine what happens when the claim is refuted?
Any credibility afforded the rest of the claims has to be reconsidered too IMO.

Northernlily

Snickers Man wrote: »

Didn't watch this. No interest.
After all, if I want to watch a wealthy successful African American bitching on TV about their first world problems, I'll just watch the Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

Yet here you are... showing an interest.

BettyS

Northernlily wrote: »

Yet here you are... showing an interest.

It beats the misery of Brexit and COVID. The stakes are zero for us!

retro:electro

The whole thing is just completely tacky. Did we really need to know any of this information? Just another PR campaign by the two of them to ensure Meghan stays firmly positioned as victim #1 no matter what. A lot of dangling carrots without any actual information to form any proper conclusions and a lot said without context. “Kate did something but she owned it, sent me flowers and apologised”. Well what did she do? Saying something like that is completely pointless and without actually telling us what it is she did, it allows people to draw all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. Did she stab you in the face with a stiletto on purpose or was it something as innocuous as she deleted something you had recorded off Sky. Without details, this shlt is meaningless.

Again, someone is meant to have said something about Archie like “Will he be dark” sounds pretty nefarious when framed in a way that implies racial undertones but it could have been something as innocent as “I wonder what he will look like”.. and again, not saying WHO said it just leaves the whole palace open to racist accusations.
I just don’t understand the pair of them. You couldn’t pay me to involve myself in that institution and it’s no secret that it has its problems, but equally a pair of self righteous pontificating whingebags I’ve never come across. If Meghan was so concerned about not being able to defend herself while part of the firm and feeling trapped, does she not feel for Kate who she has just thrown under the bus so publicly with a vague accusation of making her cry, I doubt Kate has the ability to counteract or clarify that. I just wish they’d piss off now. The rest of the interview sounds like a load of paranoid drivel out of the two of them and just pure speculation on why they believe people acted like they did towards them. Nothing concrete. The whole interview seemed to have been based on that one step forward two steps back, say things without saying anything kind of notion. Absolutely pointless but perfect if your only intention was to stir the pot.

I’m sick of seeing the pair of them every bloody day now crying about something else. You wanted privacy, now go live in peace and have it. For someone who suffered a miscarriage last year you’d think Meghan would want to be minding herself now and not stirring up a worldwide ****storm, and all for what? Whatever about her, she can move on from this. Harry has destroyed every meaningful relationship with his family with this tacky display of victim hood that absolutely nobody needed to see. And the most pathetic thing a near 40 year old man whinging about being cut off financially from his family. They’re so out of touch it’s unreal.

Itssoeasy

banie01 wrote: »

I tweeted him to ask.
Nicely of course.

The whole we were already married when we got married thing is frankly a little out there!
It's so easily refutable by the simple fact there was just 3 of them.
A wedding requires at least 5 including 2 witnesses.

They may have had a run through, exchanged meaningful vows or something.
But!
Being so adamant that they were married in secret, prior to the state spunking £30odd million on a then meaningless ceremony?

It won't help win friends or influence people.
Now imagine what happens when the claim is refuted?
Any credibility afforded the rest of the claims has to be reconsidered too IMO.

They got married prior to the actual day ? That’s new but also as you say a wedding requires five people even in Vegas. It’s easily provable because the Archbishops office could easily disprove it.

The old chestnut of how that money could have been spent will no doubt come up because 30 million notes could be spent elsewhere.

meeeeh

BettyS wrote: »

Their ability to draw viewers was not based on themselves as people. It was based on them breaking the tradition of silence about the inner-workings of the monarchy. People were anticipating a spilling of salacious gossip about the monarchy.

By your comment, if they went on Oprah to discuss general and impersonal topics, they would have had the same viewing! I don’t think so!

People just wanted the dirt!

They have 100 million dollar production deal with Netflix and 30 million pound deal with Spotify (according to Google). They were all done before CBS Oprah interview which I don't think they are paid for. They will have another child which will just increase their marketability. Don't underestimate the ability of Americans to buy nonsense their princess sells them.

Cienciano

Anniepowaaa wrote: »

when you go on tv for a big wad of cash you have no credibility in my eyes

They weren't paid for it. They did it to get their side of the story out. Apparently that's one of the first things covered in the interview.

"Before we get in to it, I just want to make it clear to everybody that even though we’re neighbors … that there has not been an agreement, you don’t know what I’m going to ask, and there is no subject that’s off-limits and you are not getting paid for this interview."

Meghan responded: "All of that is correct."

BettyS

meeeeh wrote: »

They have 100 million dollar production deal with Netflix and 30 million pound deal with Spotify (according to Google). They were all done before CBS Oprah interview which I don't think they are paid for. They will have another child which will just increase their marketability. Don't underestimate the ability of Americans to buy nonsense their princess sells them.

“Fame is a fickle food, upon a shifting plate.”

Their novelty will wear off very quickly!

Gael23

Well the **** has well and truly hit the fan

banie01

Itssoeasy wrote: »

They got married prior to the actual day ? That’s new but also as you say a wedding requires five people even in Vegas. It’s easily provable because the Archbishops office could easily disprove it.

That was the claim made during the interview, I'm looking forward to seeing a statement from the Archbishop's office or a copy of the wedding cert TBH.

Be right back

Gael23 wrote: »

Well the **** has well and truly hit the fan

Can imagine that there's steam coming out of William's ears this morning.

BettePorter

Alluding to someone in the family making a racist comment about 'what if the baby is dark' yet refusing to mention the context or name who said it is up there with Trump and his 'Many People say' goto response.

Why bring it up if you're not going to name them! If they said it and you truly believe it was racially intended...shame them ! Otherwise you're just creating the clickbait you yourself claim to be victim of !

Itssoeasy

banie01 wrote: »

That was the claim made during the interview, I'm looking forward to seeing a statement from the Archbishop's office or a copy of the wedding cert TBH.

Right. Big claim and if the statement from the Archbishop’s office is along the lines of “no such event took place” or something like that then that’s an own goal.