Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[skategal]

I think Harry did move mountains to save Meghan and Archie by getting them out of the toxic environment that they were in which was harming them.

Speaking as a parent, you can put up with a lot of nonsense from your family when it’s affecting just yourself (or yourself and your spouse) but when it starts affecting your child, it’s a whole new ballgame and your tolerance for it becomes very, very low.

 

[antmanb]

And were Elizabeth and Margaret close? They certainly weren't depicted as close on The Crown.

Is the Grand Prix Final the most important figure skating competition of the season? It certainly was depicted as such on Yuri On Ice!

 

[starrynight]

All of this does prove why long relationships before marriage should be the way forward for future generations.

Meghan never even properly lived in the UK or experienced anything serious of royal life prior to engagement. So basically she went in with zero preparation and exposure and then found out too late that she didn't want it. I do think Harry should have known better too and given her more opportunity to consider her options.

A year of living together in the UK prior to engagement would have probably sorted this out a lot earlier - particularly given that it seems Meghan very quickly completely mentally collapsed under the situation, becoming suicidal within about 8 months of marriage.

I know William is made out to be bad by suggesting that Harry slow things down (William also asked Diana's brother the Earl of Spencer to talk to Harry about it too), but it does seem like it was good advice given what happened. I think this is an example of the two sides of the story. Family members were trying to slow things down to give them more adjustment time.

 

[MsZem]

I think Harry did move mountains to save Meghan and Archie by getting them out of the toxic environment that they were in which was harming them.

Archie was living quietly with his parents, and his maternal grandmother was there to help. That's not toxic.

Obviously, if his parents were struggling it wouldn't have done him much good.

 

[skategal]

Archie was living quietly with his parents, and his maternal grandmother was there to help. That's not toxic.

Obviously, if his parents were struggling it wouldn't have done him much good.

Just because Meghan’s mom was there to help doesn’t mean the environment wasn’t toxic.

Plus, a parent struggling with mental health issues has profound negative effects on their child even in utero.

 

[taf2002]

All of this does prove why long relationships before marriage should be the way forward for future generations.

Meghan never even properly lived in the UK or experienced anything serious of royal life prior to engagement. So basically she went in with zero preparation and exposure and then found out too late that she didn't want it. I do think Harry should have known better too and given her more opportunity to consider her options.

A year of living together in the UK prior to engagement would have probably sorted this out a lot earlier - particularly given that it seems Meghan very quickly completely mentally collapsed under the situation, becoming suicidal within about 8 months of marriage.

I know William is made out to be bad by suggesting that Harry slow things down (William also asked Diana's brother the Earl of Spencer to talk to Harry about it too), but it does seem like it was good advice given what happened. I think this is an example of the two sides of the story. Family members were trying to slow things down to give them more adjustment time.

If what you say is true then the marriage would have collapsed by now. The argument against a short engagement (as though there's a hard & fast rule for it) is that you really don't know the person & you may find things that are deal-breakers. I think it's clear that H&M's relationship doesn't fit into this theory. Why do you & others keep harping on the length of their engagement? It's a non-conversation now. Just because William needed 10 years to know that Kate was the one doesn't mean that Harry didn't know his own mind within a year. I find W&K's courtship ridiculous, not H&M's.

 

[antmanb]

I also don't understand why you have to be team one of the brothers or not.

It's entirely possible to discuss either of them without bashing the other one. It's as pathetic as figure skating fandom where you have to put the rivals down just because you uber one skater

 

[MsZem]

If what you say is true then the marriage would have collapsed by now. The argument against a short engagement (as though there's a hard & fast rule for it) is that you really don't know the person & you may find things that are deal-breakers. I think it's clear that H&M's relationship doesn't fit into this theory. Why do you & others keep harping on the length of their engagement? It's a non-conversation now. Just because William needed 10 years to know that Kate was the one doesn't mean that Harry didn't know his own mind within a year. I find W&K's courtship ridiculous, not H&M's.

I find neither ridiculous. I do think Catherine had a better idea of what she was getting into, but that's also due to being British and much more familiar with what her role would entail.

Anyway, there's a difference between a couple who met at a young age like the Cambridges and a couple who got together in their early to mid-thirties like the Sussexes. I know people who waited a decade and more before getting married, because they too met when they were young and wanted to take their time. And that's without the pressure of marrying into the BRF!

 

[canbelto]

I think it's sweet that Harry loves Meghan so much that he's willing to choose her over his family -- isn't that part of his marriage vows?

 

[Jenny]

If what you say is true then the marriage would have collapsed by now. The argument against a short engagement (as though there's a hard & fast rule for it) is that you really don't know the person & you may find things that are deal-breakers. I think it's clear that H&M's relationship doesn't fit into this theory. Why do you & others keep harping on the length of their engagement? It's a non-conversation now.

Because you're the only one who is equating a short engagement with an unsuccessful marriage, I can't recall anyone else saying that.

What people are saying, including Meghan herself, is that she was not prepared for what she was getting into in marrying Harry - not Harry himself, but everything that came with a person in his position - and a longer engagement might have gone a long way to helping her fully understand what being a member of the Royal Family means.

Yes they were older and she had been married before and they wanted children so a longer engagement wasn't the right thing for their marriage, but it would have helped the other challenges.

Also would have helped if she hadn't gone into it with an attitude that she was going to change everything, modernize etc etc. I don't know how much of that was made up by the media or her fans, or stoked by her social climbing, brand-conscious friends, but if that was her thinking, then it's even worse that she went in - by her own admission - not understanding what it was going to entail.

 

[MsZem]

I think it's sweet that Harry loves Meghan so much that he's willing to choose her over his family -- isn't that part of his marriage vows?

I don't know, is it part of any marriage ceremony that you should forsake your original family when you get married? Should, say, Princess Victoria leave behind her parents and siblings because she has Daniel, Estelle and Oscar?

To me it seems better to prioritize your new family, especially young children, while also maintaining a healthy relationship with the rest of the family. Obviously this isn't always possible.

 

[Jenny]

I think it's sweet that Harry loves Meghan so much that he's willing to choose her over his family -- isn't that part of his marriage vows?

It's notable that she did the same thing. Gave up her career, her other interests including her blog and social media following, publicly cut ties with all but one family member, moved to another country and culture, changed her name, all of it. But then it didn't work, so they tried some sort of 50/50 arrangement without really thinking it through, and then Harry gave it all up for her.

But no, I don't think it's part of his marriage vows.

 

[taf2002]

Because you're the only one who is equating a short engagement with an unsuccessful marriage, I can't recall anyone else saying that.

Not just me. My post was in answer to someone who was implying that. It's been said or implied many times on this thread.

 

[canbelto]

I don't know, is it part of any marriage ceremony that you should forsake your original family when you get married? Should, say, Princess Victoria leave behind her parents and siblings because she has Daniel, Estelle and Oscar?

To me it seems better to prioritize your new family, especially young children, while also maintaining a healthy relationship with the rest of the family. Obviously this isn't always possible.

In the old days when a princess was sent abroad to marry, her parents (King and Queen) would say to her very formally "May we never see each other again." A sign of a successful marriage was a princess thriving in her adopted country and never seeing her biological family again.

 

[quartz]

The only people who get to define a marriage are the two people in it. There’s almost certainly things in all of our marriages that others don’t understand or wouldn’t do or have a very different philosophy towards. Expectations are vastly different for every couple, and like every other couple, Harry and Meghan get to choose to navigate theirs, their way.

Harry also gets to tell his childhood story, his way. That it is being played out in public, is also Harry’s choice, and he will have to deal with any reactions, be they positive or negative.
I wish them all well as they clearly struggling with how to get through this.


And to piggy back off @canbelto ’s comment, being a princess has historically not been great.
Disney has romanticized it and we forget that a princess was generally a commodity or a pawn, and married off to whoever made the best alliance. The princess often got stuck with some brutish lout twice her age who needed to shore up his defences with her dowry and political might of her father. And then get banged about until she produced a handful of male heirs.
I prefer to be the dairy maid who marries the goat herder just because she loves him.

 

[MsZem]

In the old days when a princess was sent abroad to marry, her parents (King and Queen) would say to her very formally "May we never see each other again." A sign of a successful marriage was a princess thriving in her adopted country and never seeing her biological family again.

Do you have anything to support this, or is it something you saw on TV?

Anyway, in the old days people made dynastic marriages and the the king of England beheaded some of his wives. We are not living in the old days. I can guarantee you that princesses/queens who moved to other countries (Queen Maxima, Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Crown Princess Mary and Princess Marie of Denmark) do see their families, and Princess Caroline did not have to forsake Monaco upon her marriage to the Prince of Hanover.

 

[canbelto]

Do you have anything to support this, or is it something you saw on TV?

Anyway, in the old days people made dynastic marriages and the the king of England beheaded some of his wives. We are not living in the old days. I can guarantee you that princesses/queens who moved to other countries (Queen Maxima, Madeleine of Sweden, Crown Princess Mary and Princess Marie of Denmark) do see their families, and Princess Caroline did not have to forsake Monaco upon her marriage to the Prince of Hanover.

I read it in a biography of Louis XIV. He used to say that to his daughters when they married.

 

[VGThuy]

And sometimes the princesses would live long enough to see a war happen between her adopted country through marriage and her birth country. I always wondered what that must have been like or if they already been through so much crap that they were just numb to trauma by that point.

 

[Coco]

Season 1 of the Spanish Princess was such compelling TV. I couldn't watch Season 2 because it was too intense.

Anyway, yeah, Henry the VIII was a straight up serial killer. What a crazy time that would have been to be alive. Death around every corner.

 

[Jenny]

Random facts if I'm remembering my Tudor history correctly. Of his six wives, only two were executed on his order (not a great percentage, but the point is he didn't kill them all).

He did have a few other people killed, but history records that things didn't start out like that - he was maybe a dozen years into his reign before the first execution, the Duke of Buckingham, for treason. At that time, Henry's throne was on shaky ground - the War of the Roses left a lot of people thinking/believing the wrong person was on the throne, and of course his father got there by offing Richard III, so the Tudor dynasty was only into its second generation anyway.

Can't imagine what it would have been like to know that much of the population, including many within his own court and even his own family, wanted him dead, and were actively conspiring to make it happen.

 

[canbelto]

Henry VIII might be the first known case of CTE. He apparently had a lot of concussions from jousting and never was the same. He became more paranoid and unreasonable.

Anyway, Meghan gave up a lot to upend her life and move to England. And so its only fair that Harry has to give up a lot too.

 

[VGThuy]

That's crazy in a way because you would think the dynasty that combined the white rose and red rose would be the best and most stable situation considering the War of the Roses was just two factions of the same family fighting over who gets the throne. Now those two factions were combined.

 

[MsZem]

Random facts if I'm remembering my Tudor history correctly. Of his six wives, only two were executed on his order (not a great percentage, but the point is he didn't kill them all).

He did have a few other people killed, but history records that things didn't start out like that - he was maybe a dozen years into his reign before the first execution, the Duke of Buckingham, for treason. At that time, Henry's throne was on shaky ground - the War of the Roses left a lot of people thinking/believing the wrong person was on the throne, and of course his father got there by offing Richard III, so the Tudor dynasty was only into its second generation anyway.

Can't imagine what it would have been like to know that much of the population, including many within his own court and even his own family, wanted him dead, and were actively conspiring to make it happen.

It was certainly a different time. Today people only conspire to get you trashed by the media

 

[Jenny]

Just on this idea of giving it all up for love. There are many women of my mother's generation, even my own, who gladly gave it all up for a man. Getting married was to get out from under your parents, be an adult, have a home that was your own, transform yourself beginning with changing your name. Even those with a good childhood, it was like you've arrived, you have it all now.

I saw so many examples - myself among them I admit - of girls who once they had a boyfriend pretty much dropped their own friends in favour of suddenly being on the arm of someone and being part of his life, so new and exciting, people who didn't know you before and now know you as Girl Who Has a Boyfriend, yay! Then later, after bad or even just not so good marriages and other relationships, I saw women only too happy to once again "give it all up," take on yet another new name and start over again.

So yeah for love, but also for oneself. Not sure which Meghan is, probably a combination of both and other factors.

For Harry though, I think that's love. In my personal experience I've only seen this a few times, but if reminds me of one male friend who had had relationships that didn't work out so this time it was going to work, and he did everything, made sacrifices, all of it, for her. They're still together, they're happy, but it was definitely him giving it all up for her, not the other way around.

 

[puglover]

Sorry - I am stuck on the facts, as we understand it, that Harry and Meghan did not want a total break from royal life, Frogmore Cottage, life in GB, supporting Her Majesty, the Queen in her royal duties, and being seen as royal. In fact, they describe it was a "progressive new role within the institution". They mention Archie and his birthright. I don't think I am the only one who felt they wanted to live 1/2 time carrying on as usual and 1/2 time somewhere else developing their own projects and generating some of their own money. We know that was not what was agreed to and they were given an ultimatum - in or out. They would always be beloved members of the family but this was not a part-time gig. That begs me to ask, was it always as horrendous as you now proclaim?

 

[canbelto]

Just on this idea of giving it all up for love. There are many women of my mother's generation, even my own, who gladly gave it all up for a man. Getting married was to get out from under your parents, be an adult, have a home that was your own, transform yourself beginning with changing your name. Even those with a good childhood, it was like you've arrived, you have it all now.

One of the marks against Meghan in the Brit tabloids was that she had a history before Harry -- divorced, had previous bf's and husbands.
The Brits seem to want virginity tests a la Diana (and how weird was it that Diana's UNCLE vouched for her virginity)?

 

[MsZem]

One of the marks against Meghan in the Brit tabloids was that she had a history before Harry -- divorced, had previous bf's and husbands.
The Brits seem to want virginity tests a la Diana (and how weird was it that Diana's UNCLE vouched for her virginity)?

Really. Was anyone clamoring for Catherine, who had dated other men, to submit to such a thing? Or Sophie Wessex when she married Edward? Plus as @starrynight pointed out earlier, the BRF's PR team was able to make Camilla much more popular, and I can guarantee you that she was not a virgin either.

Please stop assuming that everything you see in The Crown is (1) true and (2) an accurate representation of how things are handled today.

 

[antmanb]

Sorry - I am stuck on the facts, as we understand it, that Harry and Meghan did not want a total break from royal life, Frogmore Cottage, life in GB, supporting Her Majesty, the Queen in her royal duties, and being seen as royal. In fact, they describe it was a "progressive new role within the institution". They mention Archie and his birthright. I don't think I am the only one who felt they wanted to live 1/2 time carrying on as usual and 1/2 time somewhere else developing their own projects and generating some of their own money. We know that was not what was agreed to and they were given an ultimatum - in or out. They would always be beloved members of the family but this was not a part-time gig. That begs me to ask, was it always as horrendous as you now proclaim?

Not Harry, obviously, but I come from an incredibly toxic family where my sexuality was the catalyst that prompted a half-in/half-out situation, it ultimately ended with a 100% out of the family, and with 20/20 hindsight I can't believe that I was at one point willing to sacrifice most of my morals to stay a part of that family, but the idea of family itself is one that society puts right up there on a pedestal and its incredibly difficult to see that until you're out of it. Some people who knew me at the time may question whether my childhood/adolescence was as horrendous as I now proclaim, and I would say absolutely yes it was, I see that with blinding clarity now I'm out of it. And that's just in a fairly normal run of the mill family not the Royal Family.

 

[canbelto]

Sorry - I am stuck on the facts, as we understand it, that Harry and Meghan did not want a total break from royal life, Frogmore Cottage, life in GB, supporting Her Majesty, the Queen in her royal duties, and being seen as royal. In fact, they describe it was a "progressive new role within the institution". They mention Archie and his birthright. I don't think I am the only one who felt they wanted to live 1/2 time carrying on as usual and 1/2 time somewhere else developing their own projects and generating some of their own money. We know that was not what was agreed to and they were given an ultimatum - in or out. They would always be beloved members of the family but this was not a part-time gig. That begs me to ask, was it always as horrendous as you now proclaim?

Most people want some relationship with their family. I assume at one time Harry wanted a relationship with his family. Between Megxit and the Oprah interview I think things broke down even further, and he probably views his divorce from his family as complete and irreversible now.

How many women killed by honor killings were killed because they were fooled/tricked into visiting their family for an apparent reconciliation?

 

[puglover]

I do get it that families can be very hurtful. I was cast out of my family for joining a religion that they did not approve of and 50 years later I have contact with only one cousin. However, I never ever felt the need to injure them, get back at them, make my aged grandparents pay for my pain. They came to their feelings based on their own life experiences.

I think it is most regrettable that BP could not have found a compromise for Harry and Meghan as I think they were/are? much loved and they could have had a powerful voice. Very likely the route they wanted to go will be much closer to how the family will pare down in the future. Of course, I don't know why it was shut down but many comments that I read sounded like the British public saw it as "have your cake and eat it too".

Their present direction feels like "scorched earth" to me and I do not see how Harry can speak so lovingly about his grandmother on the one hand and then attack everything she has stood for on the other.