Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I didn’t say I “hate” her. I’m not that poster. I dislike her because she was playing the victim.

Say what you will about the Daily Mail, but they did what appears to be a pretty even-handed fact check of several of the core claims in the interview: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9338421/Royal-revelations-test.html

[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.

NP, with parents and spouse from current/former Commonwealth countries. I have little interest or respect for the Crown given how Britain accumulated its wealth (hint: my ancestors were captured from their respective countries and enslaved). I don't think Markle as an American woman should ingratiate herself to this "institution" and grovel beyond just getting to know her ILs. Why should non-Brits put the Crown on such a pedestal? I hope the whole thing crumbles in our lifetimes.

[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?

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’.

Again: that’s in line with the letters patent the Queen issued in 2013.

Harry’s kid is not a Cambridge child. He is the child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

If Harry and Meghan wanted a new letters patent issued, they needed to ask for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, with parents and spouse from current/former Commonwealth countries. I have little interest or respect for the Crown given how Britain accumulated its wealth (hint: my ancestors were captured from their respective countries and enslaved). I don't think Markle as an American woman should ingratiate herself to this "institution" and grovel beyond just getting to know her ILs. Why should non-Brits put the Crown on such a pedestal? I hope the whole thing crumbles in our lifetimes.

Fine. Fair. But then why marry into it? Why bitch about your kid not getting a title or security paid by the family you supposedly hate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Wow. Classy. #ingrainedmisogyny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Wow. Classy. #ingrainedmisogyny

Just because someone has experienced discrimination does not make them an angel who cannot ever be criticized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Wow. Classy. #ingrainedmisogyny

Just because someone has experienced discrimination does not make them an angel who cannot ever be criticized.

I have no idea what your comment has to do with mine. Going after a woman for being sad about a miscarriage and open about it to try to normalize grief around an event that is usually ignored by society is cruel and below the belt.

[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.

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

I agree. She seems very attention seeking, from being suicidal or Oprah interview..What is the point of the this interview? Do the masses really need or want to know all about Harry and Meghan? It seems like nothing more than a PR move to get screen time. They are not at all relevant in US culture and they moved out of the UK so, they don’t care over there either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Wow. Classy. #ingrainedmisogyny

Just because someone has experienced discrimination does not make them an angel who cannot ever be criticized.

But who criticizes how someone chooses to feel about their miscarriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Wow. Classy. #ingrainedmisogyny

Just because someone has experienced discrimination does not make them an angel who cannot ever be criticized.

I have no idea what your comment has to do with mine. Going after a woman for being sad about a miscarriage and open about it to try to normalize grief around an event that is usually ignored by society is cruel and below the belt.

I’m not the person who brought up the NYTimes article. I’m simply responding to people accusing anyone who criticizes Meghan in any way, shape, or form of sexism or racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, with parents and spouse from current/former Commonwealth countries. I have little interest or respect for the Crown given how Britain accumulated its wealth (hint: my ancestors were captured from their respective countries and enslaved). I don't think Markle as an American woman should ingratiate herself to this "institution" and grovel beyond just getting to know her ILs. Why should non-Brits put the Crown on such a pedestal? I hope the whole thing crumbles in our lifetimes.

It's not about the respect for the Crown. It's about attempting to understand and interpret the behaviors' of others using their background and cultural context.

[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?

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’.

Again: that’s in line with the letters patent the Queen issued in 2013.

Harry’s kid is not a Cambridge child. He is the child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

If Harry and Meghan wanted a new letters patent issued, they needed to ask for that.

You’re assuming they didn’t. And if they had - the BRF put the black wife and her husband in a dilapidated shack next to a cemetery and refused to send her on tour with proper support. There is no way they’d even be willing to start the conversation on a new letters patent and they know it.

[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.

+1 I feel like there is one poster making every single issue about race and it is tiresome. And inaccurate.

Nope, it’s the ones accusing others of being ignorant and inaccurate who would have the issue wrong, so stop telling others they don’t understand. No one, including Megan Markle, is claiming Archie was deprived of his right to the throne. The issue is him losing his title as prince which would have happened when his grandfather became King.

[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.

I agree. She seems very attention seeking, from being suicidal or Oprah interview..What is the point of the this interview? Do the masses really need or want to know all about Harry and Meghan? It seems like nothing more than a PR move to get screen time. They are not at all relevant in US culture and they moved out of the UK so, they don’t care over there either.

They care a ton in the UK because they worry about what this will do to the royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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’.

Again: that’s in line with the letters patent the Queen issued in 2013.

Harry’s kid is not a Cambridge child. He is the child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

If Harry and Meghan wanted a new letters patent issued, they needed to ask for that.

You’re assuming they didn’t. And if they had - the BRF put the black wife and her husband in a dilapidated shack next to a cemetery and refused to send her on tour with proper support. There is no way they’d even be willing to start the conversation on a new letters patent and they know it.

Lol what?

The conversation would be with the Queen, who they repeatedly said had been wonderful to them throughout.