Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing about this is that they could have discretely had her talk to a psychologist without anyone knowing. She could have gotten help.

It is appalling they decided otherwise.

I’m also disappointed about the fact that they didn’t want to provide security. Is it because the security is more expensive or more racist?

Seriously- it cannot possibly be worth it to have the whole family be destroyed this way.

Finally- i still think it’s HRH Charles that made the skin color reference. I’m gonna be honest- that many is sketchy

I agree with this. You could tell by the way he talked about Charles.

Then what do you think caused the "space" between Harry and his brother?

IMO the affair and him not speaking out in support of Meghan when Harry did speak out in support of Kate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how this stuff works but can someone explain how the BRF can just deny support for Harry's child when they're literally protecting williams kids?

"Do what we want and how we want it or you are on your own."

Not really true.

There’s no precedent for giving a prince title to Archie, or separate security. He’s a great-grandchild. The Queen would have to issue a separate letters patent, which Parliament would then have to approve.

People act like Williams’ and Harry’s kids are on equal footing. They are not and never will be.

Got it thanks. Meghan made it seem like her son was stripped of the title. Said something along the lines of why should my son not have what he is entitled to have...That's why I was confused.

Yea she got some important things wrong about how the royal family operates. My guess is she never cared to learn. I’m predicting the Royals either completely ignore her and her antics or just start slowly releasing embarrassing tidbits about her to the British press.

So I still don't get why they would leak all that stuff about her to the press. What was their point and objective for doing that?? Was it jealousy?

Old habits die hard. Meghan and Harry were extremely popular after their Australia tour. That’s when all of this started getting really bad. It mirrors Diana’s experience almost exactly. Shortly after her wedding, she and Charles went on an Australia tour. It was quickly obvious that she was more popular and the crowds were there to see her — the rest is history!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans love grifters apparently. First Trump now Markle.
SAD!

Americans support non-racists. And PM Johnson needs to think carefully about what he's going to say this afternoon. Thanks to him Britain needs that post-Brexit/I'm-so-racist-I'm-leaving-the-EU-over-migrants deal more than we need anything from them.

Keep up. Johnson has already said his piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so confused. Why are these two whining about the BRF not financially supporting them or providing security when they stepped away as working members? Am I missing something? Why do you have an expectation that it should continue when you don’t work there?

Archie didn't have security before stepping away. As an infant, he is mostly with his parents. But as he aged this would be an issue.

Let’s be transparent, Archie was covered under his father’s umbrella. There was no immediate security concern.

And yet someone broke into the home looking for Archie when H&M were on travel. Fortunately, he was with the nanny. Two months later H&M departed for Canada. I wonder if that was the last straw that pushed them to leave.

They had security in Canada! They had security until March 2020.

Funny how they didn’t mention that.

it was mentioned

Did they think the US was going to pay for their security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly think the best thing the royal family can do is ignore the interview and anything else that comes from those two.

Maybe. But personally I’d like to see more juicy gossip leaked because I could care less about the royals nor entitled people crying about titles that mean nothing. It’s sick but fun entertainment.

The title does mean something : access to security. A big deal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how this stuff works but can someone explain how the BRF can just deny support for Harry's child when they're literally protecting williams kids?

"Do what we want and how we want it or you are on your own."

Not really true.

There’s no precedent for giving a prince title to Archie, or separate security. He’s a great-grandchild. The Queen would have to issue a separate letters patent, which Parliament would then have to approve.

People act like Williams’ and Harry’s kids are on equal footing. They are not and never will be.

This. And I'm not surprised Megan was not on board with this. She's not the second fiddle type.

Nailed it.

Yes, she did not like her place in the hierarchy. And, let's face it, she brought a lot of glamour and some modernity to the family and expected to be treated like the asset she was. But that's not how it works in the BRF. They didn't know how to work with Diana and they didn't know how to work with her, even more complicated since a mature American who did not come from or really understand their world.

I disagree that she brought a lot of glamour to the monarchy. Her wedding dress was quite plain and the dark blue outfit also unflattering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is very telling how deep racism is in America by posts here on dcum! You just don't get it! You are so blind to your own bias when it comes to race and race issues.

You truly think all your comments about Meghan are just that, not clouded by decades of being conditioned to view women, particularly Black women, as hysterical, irrational, and playing the victim.
I am saying this with all honesty and well intentions; please, please look into what racial bias is and how you are unaware of it. Once you start realizing what it is and how it manifests, I am hopeful that many here will realize that they truly didn't know they were engaged in it.
Because you were conditioned to think you are just telling it like it is.

But, racial power structures are so ingrained in the culture that you truly believe you are not saying or acting in a racist way, even when you are.
Even BBC is acknowledging that this must be addressed, but not the majority of white dcum.

Eh, no one views, for instance, Oprah as hysterical and irrational. Or Michelle Obama. Or Condoleezza Rice. You know, actual black women who have accomplished something and conducted themselves with dignity.

I choose to believe the experts than you.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2901298?seq=1
https://www.today.com/health/implicit-bias-medicine-how-it-hurts-black-women-t187866
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827865/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans love grifters apparently. First Trump now Markle.
SAD!

Americans support non-racists. And PM Johnson needs to think carefully about what he's going to say this afternoon. Thanks to him Britain needs that post-Brexit/I'm-so-racist-I'm-leaving-the-EU-over-migrants deal more than we need anything from them.

And Jen Psaki, the Biden Press Secretary just spoke up in support from the WHITE HOUSE PRESS ROOM.

Take that you British racists.

Psaki didn’t take a side, only that she supports people telling their story. Typical Biden diplomacy.

The fact that she mentioned it at all is both incredible and a clear sign. Aside from that - its nice to be back to diplomacy where people know how to signal actions and thoughts without being idiots like Trump who had the Chinese diplomats laughing in his face. I guarantee the British embassy at 3100 Massachusetts Ave is buzzing today and lit up the phones to Downing Street shortly after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so confused. Why are these two whining about the BRF not financially supporting them or providing security when they stepped away as working members? Am I missing something? Why do you have an expectation that it should continue when you don’t work there?

Archie didn't have security before stepping away. As an infant, he is mostly with his parents. But as he aged this would be an issue.

Let’s be transparent, Archie was covered under his father’s umbrella. There was no immediate security concern.

And yet someone broke into the home looking for Archie when H&M were on travel. Fortunately, he was with the nanny. Two months later H&M departed for Canada. I wonder if that was the last straw that pushed them to leave.

They had security in Canada! They had security until March 2020.

Funny how they didn’t mention that.

it was mentioned

Did they think the US was going to pay for their security?

No. they did not think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will Harry ever visit with his family again

No. He’s hanging the tea over X-person’s head. They know who they are. They know he knows. Awkward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not surprised by the level of vitriol in the comments sections of the UK tabloids articles, but it’s a bit shocking to see the hatemongering against Meghan here on an overwhelmingly American forum. What is it, if not reaction to her being an ‘uppity’ woman of color?

I’d love to know how many of you reviling her are MAGA voters.

+1

Especially because other than the Parler types, US social media is overwhelmingly favorable to H&M.

May I remind you that historically DCUM is a better educated crowd and that is likely why you post here? Many of us see right through her.

Translation = Better able to shield their bullshit and racism in euphemistic terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how this stuff works but can someone explain how the BRF can just deny support for Harry's child when they're literally protecting williams kids?

"Do what we want and how we want it or you are on your own."

Not really true.

There’s no precedent for giving a prince title to Archie, or separate security. He’s a great-grandchild. The Queen would have to issue a separate letters patent, which Parliament would then have to approve.

People act like Williams’ and Harry’s kids are on equal footing. They are not and never will be.

Got it thanks. Meghan made it seem like her son was stripped of the title. Said something along the lines of why should my son not have what he is entitled to have...That's why I was confused.

That's not quite it. William's kids already have it because they are children of the heir. Since the time of Elizabeth's father, Archie would get it when his grandfather became king. Right now the monarch is his great grandmother. The BRF was considering changing that tradition so that grandchildren on the reigning monarch NOT get the title. Meghan was pointing out that they were making that change just when Archie and his sister were going to be the ones to benefit. It troubled her that they would change the tradition just when the first person of color would stand to benefit. It troubled her far more that ongoing security for Archie and his sister was tied to that title. So it wasn't just a title. It was a title and security.

That is not true. The law was changed in 2013 just before George was born. Otherwise his siblings would NOT have been HRHs but he would have. They would have been Lord Louis and Lady Charlotte until Charles was King - just like Archie. Meghan's confusion was 'well if they changed the law for one child, while aren't they doing it for the rest'.

You are talking about two different laws.

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-archie-royal-title/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly think the best thing the royal family can do is ignore the interview and anything else that comes from those two.

Maybe. But personally I’d like to see more juicy gossip leaked because I could care less about the royals nor entitled people crying about titles that mean nothing. It’s sick but fun entertainment.

The title does mean something : access to security. A big deal!

Well now they’ll just have to deal with tabloids and paparazzi like the rest of us. So so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone find the whole story about therapy really, really weird? It's well known (at least here in the UK), that Charles pushed Diana to go to therapy, that William and Harry went to therapy after their mother passed (they've both spoken publicly about this), that Kate went to therapy with her brother when he was very depressed. Meghan said that she told everyone and no one was willing to help. Harry then said he told no one, not even his family. She couldn't have called up her OBGYN to ask for a referral? A private doctor? Harry's therapist? It makes no sense to me.

+11111111111111111111111111

Yup! This was one of many lies told during the interview.. Harry co-founded an organization based on mental health but he didn’t know how to help his own wife, yet somehow it’s his family’s fault????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans love grifters apparently. First Trump now Markle.
SAD!

Americans support non-racists. And PM Johnson needs to think carefully about what he's going to say this afternoon. Thanks to him Britain needs that post-Brexit/I'm-so-racist-I'm-leaving-the-EU-over-migrants deal more than we need anything from them.

Keep up. Johnson has already said his piece.

40 minutes til the interview is live on your shores Brit. How are you feeling about whether or not Buckingham Palace will be standing tomorrow?