Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oprah asked her, so it the title just because that’s how you get him security. And Meghan answered “no it’s his birthright.” So clearly Meghan cares about the title beyond the security piece.

Right. And it wasn't his birthright, at least not yet, so she really didn't understand the structure of the family she married into.

I think it’s you who really doesn’t understand, actually. But hey, don’t let that stop you from criticizing the black lady.

I'm a new poster, but I agree with the PP. American's think that any relation of the royal family gets a title, but it's not necessarily true, and not, as simple as you would expect. Archie is the son of a second born son of the first born son of the queen. That does not make him a prince. Just because Megahn wants her life to read like a storybook doesn't actually make it so. There are books about peerage and titles, she should read them.

Meghan's race has nothing to do with it, she is just ignorant of the title protocol.

Agreed. I started off the day not knowing how the succession of the royal titles work and now I have a better understanding. It sounds like Archie was never entitled to have a title to begin with since he is the great-grandson of the queen. Meghan claiming that they denied him that title which resulted in him not having security is misleading and a bit over the top. Before they made the decision to leave the family, Harry had security already.. why would their baby need a separate one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else find it odd, that in this interview, with PLENTY of heavy topics like racism, questions about the baby's skin color, not dealing with mental health issues appropriately, heavy discussion on the family vs. the firm, and so on and so on, Meghan said that Kate made her cry about the f-ing flower girl dresses????

I'm sorry, I like Meghan and I'm rooting for her, but that seemed TOTALLY PETTY. I don't know why she just didn't say, when O. asked, "That is an example of a totally false tabloid story. In short, the answer is NO, I never made Kate cry about the dresses."

Answering like she did, did not fit well with the rest of the interview. It seemed like there were petty feuds and it just gave more ammo to those rumors. I found it so strange that she threw Kate under the bus like that, only to make herself look petty.

I disagree I think its an important distinction. Saying 'it never happened' is somewhat vague and can be easily forgotten, saying 'this not only did not happen, but the reverse actually did happen and someone in the palace reversed the roles in the story and pushed it out months later' says much more clearly that the firm was looking to intentionally hurt her, a point that would not have been made by 'it never happened.'

She went out of her way to not paint Kate badly here.

Okay, but just to push further. If no one has power, if everyone is trapped, how could Kate correct this? Honest question that is bothering me. Meghan has her passport and phone taken away, but Kate can just speed dial the British media and correct this? Or even issue her own press release?

I honestly don't know, but something doesn't add up here.

Meghan didn't expect Kate to correct it. She expected "the firm" to do it. I don't think she felt let down personally by Kate.
Meghan clearly said that Kate very graciously apologized. She also said Kate was "a good person."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Harry (6th in line) single handedly end the monarchy?

I'm convinced Kate and William are going to have a 4th child after this interview to push him down to #7

But the real question is will they teach their fourth baby to be as racist as they are? Only time will tell...

They can't. Royal babies cost too much money. There were already questions when they had a 3rd. Take a look at all the other royals - the Queen's children only have 2 a piece and the Queen's grandchildren only have 2 a piece (except Kate).

You think that's a coincidence? Some magical combination of infertility and only liking two kids that affected 12 different couples?

According to other posters Kate should get a job to pay for their security and stop being an entitled bitch.

Kate is a working member of the BRF. Meghan is not. See the difference?

Good point. If you work for the family you get some perks and lose some independence like doing work on the side for significant $$. Meghan and Harry lose the perks and get the independence (and ability to earn their own perks). Not sure how this is complicated.

+1 This didn't have to be inimical, strange that it's become so.

They told Harry for her to get a job before the chose to step back, while she was pregnant.
Also, if something tragic happened to William and his dad, does Harry get skipped all together?

Yes. George is next in line after William. If he's not of age, historically there's been a regent. And I believe that would be Harry in this case. But once George is of age, Harry would be out again.

Right. And barring an act of Parliament, Harry retains his position in the line of succession, regardless of what titles/styles he has lost.

[Anonymous]

It’s on CBS app

https://www.cbs.com/shows/oprah-with-meghan-and-harry-a-cbs-primetime-special/video/i6UW_WTQjLrEeOoObMmlwrFLTTypvuZm/cbs-presents-oprah-with-meghan-and-harry-a-primetime-special/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This interview made me hate meghan markle. I had no dog in the fight before it aired. She is terrible.

That's a weird reaction to someone saying that she was suicidal.

+1 It's also strange to feel the need to share all your personal thoughts and feelings, as well as your family issues with the world when you say you want privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else find it odd, that in this interview, with PLENTY of heavy topics like racism, questions about the baby's skin color, not dealing with mental health issues appropriately, heavy discussion on the family vs. the firm, and so on and so on, Meghan said that Kate made her cry about the f-ing flower girl dresses????

I'm sorry, I like Meghan and I'm rooting for her, but that seemed TOTALLY PETTY. I don't know why she just didn't say, when O. asked, "That is an example of a totally false tabloid story. In short, the answer is NO, I never made Kate cry about the dresses."

Answering like she did, did not fit well with the rest of the interview. It seemed like there were petty feuds and it just gave more ammo to those rumors. I found it so strange that she threw Kate under the bus like that, only to make herself look petty.

I disagree I think its an important distinction. Saying 'it never happened' is somewhat vague and can be easily forgotten, saying 'this not only did not happen, but the reverse actually did happen and someone in the palace reversed the roles in the story and pushed it out months later' says much more clearly that the firm was looking to intentionally hurt her, a point that would not have been made by 'it never happened.'

She went out of her way to not paint Kate badly here.

Okay, but just to push further. If no one has power, if everyone is trapped, how could Kate correct this? Honest question that is bothering me. Meghan has her passport and phone taken away, but Kate can just speed dial the British media and correct this? Or even issue her own press release?

I honestly don't know, but something doesn't add up here.

I don't think she was upset at Kate. Kate COULD do that and then the family would greenlight throwing her to the wolves. There is a set of advisors and people in power that allow or do not allow messages to get out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oprah asked her, so it the title just because that’s how you get him security. And Meghan answered “no it’s his birthright.” So clearly Meghan cares about the title beyond the security piece.

Right. And it wasn't his birthright, at least not yet, so she really didn't understand the structure of the family she married into.

I think it’s you who really doesn’t understand, actually. But hey, don’t let that stop you from criticizing the black lady.

I'm a new poster, but I agree with the PP. American's think that any relation of the royal family gets a title, but it's not necessarily true, and not, as simple as you would expect. Archie is the son of a second born son of the first born son of the queen. That does not make him a prince. Just because Megahn wants her life to read like a storybook doesn't actually make it so. There are books about peerage and titles, she should read them.

Meghan's race has nothing to do with it, she is just ignorant of the title protocol.

Agreed. I started off the day not knowing how the succession of the royal titles work and now I have a better understanding. It sounds like Archie was never entitled to have a title to begin with since he is the great-grandson of the queen. Meghan claiming that they denied him that title which resulted in him not having security is misleading and a bit over the top. Before they made the decision to leave the family, Harry had security already.. why would their baby need a separate one?

Right. The issue is that the Queen could have changed the rule by issuing a new letters patent, which then would have to have been approved by Parliament.

If they had gone to her and said, “Listen, we’re worried about Archie’s security and would like him to have the Prince title now, so he can receive security” and she said no, that’s one thing.

But it’s not clear they ever asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the biggest questions coming out of this interview is whether it was Charles or William who expressed concern about Archie's skin color. I'm curious to see how they react/defend themselves. Really curious to see if staff loyal to one or the other will leak to the press in defense of their person. IOW, will we see some kind of jockeying between the two houses to not get pegged with the single most damaging revelation of the interview. (Meghan said revealing the identity would be very damaging, so I think that pretty much limits the possibilities to Charles or William, as no one would be surprised if Phillip said it.)

Agreed, it has to be one of those three, but most likely Charles or William.

I did find it interesting how they defended the Queen and seem to still have a relatively positive relationship with her, despite her really doing nothing to help.

They can't go after the Queen. She's beloved by too many Brits, or, at least, grudgingly respected. My great-grandparents immigrated to England and my grandmother and mum grew up in London. Mum came here for grad school and stayed after meeting and marrying my dad. She became a US citizen and a loyal Democrat at that. She was not in any way a fan of the BRF, but she admired and respected the Queen, even if she saw her as a flawed monarch and mother in some ways. She would have loved The Crown and she would have loved watching H and M dish the dirt with Oprah. But, dissing the Queen -- no way.

Three other observations --

1) I agree completely with those who see Megan as completely disingenuous in claiming that she had not even an inkling of how constrained her life would be as a member of the BRF.

2) I was intrigued by Harry drawing a firm boundary on not telling who raised the issue of Archie's skin color. Is there anything that would make him give on that? Stay tuned.

3) And, in the above vein, if William and Kate don't move quickly and firmly to make clear that they will not tolerate racism, the game's up. Tourism be damned. Nobody wants to buy tea towels and other souvenirs from racists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the passport and car keys thing? I have to think there's more to the story than that. Kate drives her kids to school or the pottery painting place, Meghan went to NYC twice for her baby shower and the US Open, they went on vacations outside of the country, but they took her passport away?

The RF was very pissed about the shower. She was told not to do it and they were very offended by it.

So they get to take her passport? Creepy.

She did a lot of traveling for someone without a passport.

+1

You people are so obtuse. She HAD a passport. As in she owned a passport. She was not in physical possession of it. Once she was 'in' there were people who handled all of that for her. Which was great, until she wanted to go somewhere totally of her own free will.

Obtuse you. Are these royals free to travel somewhere if they wish or not?

Sounds like not.

Oh FFS. When you are the representative of a government, you don’t travel on your own passport. The purpose of a passport is one govt communicating to another: “this guy belongs to us, help him out/be nice to him/at least understand there will be consequences if you F with him.” When you are a working royal you do not travel on a UK passport—the same way the US President does not travel on his US Department of State issued document—because you are in a role that makes the passport moot.

So: did she travel a lot? Yes she did. Is this inconsistent with what she has said about her passport being taken away? No, it is not.

She was FREE to travel where they wanted her to. If she had taken off in the middle of an official trip to Canada and said “I’m not going back, she would have done it without the benefit of citizenship documents in her hand.

[Anonymous]

y'all are very harsh. You really can't understand what it would be like to be a caged animal while the press is tearing you down and no one is standing up for you?

They will be all the better for leaving. I wish both of them the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the interview is very American-centric and presents the situation through the lens of American standards of behavior, culture, and progress, if you will.

100%.

And many Americans don’t seem interested in understanding how royal protocol works.

It’s sort of the height of arrogance to think you can waltz into an institution that is hundreds of years old and expect it will just bend to your will and sensibilities.

It also means that being "good" and "bad" is not that clear cut. People live and learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This interview made me hate meghan markle. I had no dog in the fight before it aired. She is terrible.

If you were indifferent to her before the interview, what specifically changed your mind? Just curious.

NP, but for me it’s her naivety (or supposed naivety).

Just one example: “I didn’t research the royal family before marrying Harry because I thought I knew celebrity.”

What? They aren’t like Hollywood: UK Edition.

That tells me she’s either totally dense, totally naive, or thinks we’re dense/naive enough to believe she actually thinks that.

You hate someone because they are naïve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oprah asked her, so it the title just because that’s how you get him security. And Meghan answered “no it’s his birthright.” So clearly Meghan cares about the title beyond the security piece.

Right. And it wasn't his birthright, at least not yet, so she really didn't understand the structure of the family she married into.

I think it’s you who really doesn’t understand, actually. But hey, don’t let that stop you from criticizing the black lady.

I'm a new poster, but I agree with the PP. American's think that any relation of the royal family gets a title, but it's not necessarily true, and not, as simple as you would expect. Archie is the son of a second born son of the first born son of the queen. That does not make him a prince. Just because Megahn wants her life to read like a storybook doesn't actually make it so. There are books about peerage and titles, she should read them.

Meghan's race has nothing to do with it, she is just ignorant of the title protocol.

Agreed. I started off the day not knowing how the succession of the royal titles work and now I have a better understanding. It sounds like Archie was never entitled to have a title to begin with since he is the great-grandson of the queen. Meghan claiming that they denied him that title which resulted in him not having security is misleading and a bit over the top. Before they made the decision to leave the family, Harry had security already.. why would their baby need a separate one?

Right. The issue is that the Queen could have changed the rule by issuing a new letters patent, which then would have to have been approved by Parliament.

If they had gone to her and said, “Listen, we’re worried about Archie’s security and would like him to have the Prince title now, so he can receive security” and she said no, that’s one thing.

But it’s not clear they ever asked.

I think he was fine for 1 to 2 to 3 years. Either with mom or dad, or with nanny in a location that was secure itself.

I think they could have made a case to get security paid for eventually, when he began alone playdates and preschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oprah asked her, so it the title just because that’s how you get him security. And Meghan answered “no it’s his birthright.” So clearly Meghan cares about the title beyond the security piece.

Right. And it wasn't his birthright, at least not yet, so she really didn't understand the structure of the family she married into.

I think it’s you who really doesn’t understand, actually. But hey, don’t let that stop you from criticizing the black lady.

I'm a new poster, but I agree with the PP. American's think that any relation of the royal family gets a title, but it's not necessarily true, and not, as simple as you would expect. Archie is the son of a second born son of the first born son of the queen. That does not make him a prince. Just because Megahn wants her life to read like a storybook doesn't actually make it so. There are books about peerage and titles, she should read them.

Meghan's race has nothing to do with it, she is just ignorant of the title protocol.

Agreed. I started off the day not knowing how the succession of the royal titles work and now I have a better understanding. It sounds like Archie was never entitled to have a title to begin with since he is the great-grandson of the queen. Meghan claiming that they denied him that title which resulted in him not having security is misleading and a bit over the top. Before they made the decision to leave the family, Harry had security already.. why would their baby need a separate one?

All royal children of Harry’s generation had security and that includes his younger cousins -Edwards kids. All the Cambridge children have security. The idea of the ONLY children of a Senior Royal not having security being his children is preposterous. Not to mention the racism element - Harry/Meghan were sent fake anthrax and there’s a man in jail for personally threatening to kill Harry for being a ‘race traitor’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This interview made me hate meghan markle. I had no dog in the fight before it aired. She is terrible.

That's a weird reaction to someone saying that she was suicidal.

+1 It's also strange to feel the need to share all your personal thoughts and feelings, as well as your family issues with the world when you say you want privacy.

And, the piece she wrote for NYT about her miscarriage was a little over the top, as well.

I had a miscarriage and was extremely disappointed, but 1 in 4 pregnancies results in miscarriage. Can't imagine writing something like "while holding my first child, I lost my second child." Miscarriages generally aren't sudden events. Drama Queen