Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

Status
Not open for further replies.
puglover said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can totally see how you can love a person but not an institution of which they are part. It's called compartmentalizing and we all do it.

The Queen is part of a systemic issue. Grandma is family.
 
MacMadame said:
I can totally see how you can love a person but not an institution of which they are part. It's called compartmentalizing and we all do it.

The Queen is part of a systemic issue. Grandma is family.
Click to expand...
The Queen has been on the throne for 69 years, 108 days. The British Commonwealth is not just a business she runs, most people alive can only associate that role with one person, Queen Elizabeth II. I cannot believe anyone who loves her thinks they can aim a barb or bullet at the throne and not think they will hurt her.
 
puglover said:
The Queen has been on the throne for 69 years, 108 days. The British Commonwealth is not just a business she runs, most people alive can only associate that role with one person, Queen Elizabeth II. I cannot believe anyone who loves her thinks they can aim a barb or bullet at the throne and not think they will hurt her.
Click to expand...
Then what is the alternative? They can't criticize the monarchy at all even when it deserves it?
 
MacMadame said:
Then what is the alternative? They can't criticize the monarchy at all even when it deserves it?
Click to expand...
Well, I thought they had! From the beginning! Harry made it abundantly clear he was unhappy with the British media, decisions of BP and that they thought it safer and healthier for them to get out. To me - fair enough! Are we not well passed that?

We now have heard of serious allegations of racism with no author or context - so - what - we get to choose the royal we personally like the least and attribute it there? Meghan didn't make Kate cry - it was the other way around. Really, what about saying "To the best of my knowledge I did not make Kate cry - but - if either of us shed a few tears - her barely postpartum from her third child and me a new bride hoping to have everything perfect - no big deal, easily resolved, happens all the time in families and stop trying to pit women against women".

Oprah had a challenging upbringing but I know she made peace with her mother and supported her for the rest of her life.
 
Karen-W said:
It's rather simplistic to chalk up the estrangement occurred between Edward VIII and George VI as purely due to one being the heir and the other being the "spare". For starters, there were 2 more brothers and a sister who all lived into adulthood and had families. Second, Edward/David was leading quite a different lifestyle as the playboy bachelor prince through the 1920s while George/Bertie married and started a family. That, in and of itself, is going to lead to some natural separation. Furthermore, Edward VIII, once he ascended to the throne, was of increasing concern to the British government due to his Nazi sympathies. The post-abdication estrangement was, in no small part, due to Edward VIII himself and his beliefs/choices he made. His younger siblings, it should be noted, stood with George VI, out of loyalty to Crown and Country.

What's more, Elizabeth and Margaret had a very close relationship and there aren't any reports of any long-lasting rift between the two sisters, even in the aftermath of the Peter Townsend affair which, surely, would have caused one if there was ever one to be caused.
Click to expand...
I agree with this- Bertie and David's issues were more due to David's lifestyle choices and the mess of the abdication, which David/Edward proceeded with without regard to his family or Bertie/George's feelings- Bertie would have been 100% supportive of his brother had he stayed on the throne. And a generation before George V and his elder brother Albert Victor (Eddy) were very close- it was only the latter's early death, which put George in line for the throne that broke the relationship. And yes- Elizabeth and Margaret were very close throughout their lives.
 
Margaret and Elizabeth didn't really have a typical royal upbringing in many ways though. Bertie/George was a low-key, introverted man who spent much more time actually raising a family than most men of his generation. Thus Margaret and Elizabeth grew up in a small, close-knit family.
 
My feeling is this no family is perfect we probably all need therapy for our family issues.

You should put your spouse first.

But I think a good spouse encourages a good relationship with your family. I don’t think they bash your family in public like that.
It’s concerning to me that Harry is saying Meghan showed me I was trapped. So he had a decent relationship beforehand? Seemed he and William and Kate were close.

How is his relationship with his friends?

I just wonder how it will be a few years from now when he realized his relationship with his family was gone.

I am all for mental health and he’s they speak on it. But I don’t think airing out grievances in people heals anything.

Furthermore she says she won’t have a relationship with her father because he spoke to the press but sees no issue with her and Harry doing the same.

Treat others the way you want to be treated.
If you consider it a betrayal for your family to air out their grievances with you in public why is it okay for you to do the same.

there shouldn’t be one rule for Thomas Markle and Samantha and another for Harry and Meghan.
 
Last edited:
canbelto said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the old days, a marriage was arranged and a woman/girl was used to forge alliances and had not say in who she was going to marry. I think we have moved past that by now. Travel has also gotten a tiny bit easier.

MacMadame said:
Then what is the alternative? They can't criticize the monarchy at all even when it deserves it?
Click to expand...
To me, what they say comes across as criticism of the family on a personal level and not the institution.
 
The massive irony of this interview is that just as soon as the BBC and Bashir were about to get some comeuppance for deceptive practices, Harry blew that topic totally off the news cycle with his own tell all interview.

There's a great quote from the incredible Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which does make me think of royalty a fair bit:

"The President in particular is very much a figurehead – he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage.​
​
For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had –he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud." ​
 
I will never ever understand the pearl clutching over "Oh, they went public, they told the press, they did not resolve it privately, oh boohoohoo how sad for the rest of the BRF".

again, shovel that happy hoo-hah somewhere else. :shuffle:

The Henry's were Irish, but they were lace curtain Irish, buttoned up, stiff upper lip all of that. That doesn't make my family's approach to life "better", "more private", or "more respectful". It just makes it their approach to life. Other approaches to life, including talking to other people, airing your opinions, taking steps to change a life you don't like, are just as valid.

And trust me, knowing your cousins is not all it's cracked up to be:lol: My people are "Mare of Easttown" (haven't seen it, but from what I read. And yes, that was my accent growing up). I knew all my cousins, first ,second third and fourth. We were all up in each other's business. My father decided for very good reasons to him, but maybe not to her, that his sister's family would not be that involved in his life. And he would tell people why, despite our stiff upper lip nature. And everyone we know is the equivalent of social media and press today. :) Without the private discussions that everyone here seems to want to impose on Harry and Meghan.

We survived and they survived.

If the Henry's of Southwest Philly can do it, so can the Royals ;)
 
Last edited:
Good for your family, el Henry. But if someone in your family wanted to go to the press about family issues and settle it on Oprah or in the Sunday Mirror would anyone have cared? Would the paparazzi camp outside your home? Could you get a Netflix show? Would it be headline news? Nobody would care about my family either. That's the difference.
 
The victimization of the Royal Family is really something to see. ??

The Royal Family is not just any family but a primarily decorative institution that lives off the backs of the taxpayers. Any racist behavior on their part should be called out publicly, even if it’s by their own family. As I say that, I’m not saying Harry is perfect or hasn’t made questionable decisions himself. However, calling out racism or problems with the institution of royalty isn’t among them.
 
Last edited:
cygnus said:
Good for your family, el Henry. But if someone in your family wanted to go to the press about family issues and settle it on Oprah or in the Sunday Mirror would anyone have cared? Would the paparazzi camp outside your home? Could you get a Netflix show? Would it be headline news? Nobody would care about my family either. That's the difference.
Click to expand...

50 years ago, telling everyone in the neighborhood was the same darn thing as going on TV or going on the press. Telling everyone in the neighborhood was actually worse, since our people didn't read the papers or watch much TV. (ETA: I should say watch news on TV. I'm here because my mother and I gathered around the tiny black and white TV probably exactly 50 years ago to watch Janet Lynn on Wide World of Sports. :) )

So I stand by what I said. Too much pearl clutching over poor little Wills and Kate because Harry said what he said on TV. The equivalent of telling the neighborhood.

And I don't think the paparazzi should stand outside anyone's home. But who the heck am I to tell Harry that his response is more or less valid than Wills?
 
Last edited:
canbelto said:
Margaret and Elizabeth didn't really have a typical royal upbringing in many ways though. Bertie/George was a low-key, introverted man who spent much more time actually raising a family than most men of his generation. Thus Margaret and Elizabeth grew up in a small, close-knit family.
Click to expand...
Shame that Elizabeth (and Phillip) turned out to be such a bad parent. All her kids are messes with Anne and Edward probably being the most well-adjusted.
 
VGThuy said:
Shame that Elizabeth (and Phillip) turned out to be such a bad parent. All her kids are messes with Anne and Edward probably being the most well-adjusted.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth was very young and probably overwhelmed by royal duties when she got married and became a mother. I don't think she ever considered that children were actual work that would require her attention. Philip grew up in a broken home and a lot of dysfunction.
 
el henry said:
I will never ever understand the pearl clutching over "Oh, they went public, they told the press, they did not resolve it privately, oh boohoohoo how sad for the rest of the BRF".
Click to expand...
They can tell whomever they want as far as I am concerned. They just need to be prepared to be called hypocritical and be criticized for doing so if one of the reasons they wanted to leave the BRF is because they wanted more privacy.
 
ballettmaus said:
They can tell whomever they want as far as I am concerned. They just need to be prepared to be called hypocritical and be criticized for doing so if one of the reasons they wanted to leave the BRF is because they wanted more privacy.
Click to expand...
Every time this comes up, I ask where did they say they were leaving to have more privacy and so far no one has provided me with a link to a place where they said that. They wanted more control over their lives and to be left alone by certain tabloids. That is not the same thing.
 
el henry said:
I will never ever understand the pearl clutching over "Oh, they went public, they told the press, they did not resolve it privately, oh boohoohoo how sad for the rest of the BRF".

again, shovel that happy hoo-hah somewhere else. :shuffle:

The Henry's were Irish, but they were lace curtain Irish, buttoned up, stiff upper lip all of that. That doesn't make my family's approach to life "better", "more private", or "more respectful". It just makes it their approach to life. Other approaches to life, including talking to other people, airing your opinions, taking steps to change a life you don't like, are just as valid.

And trust me, knowing your cousins is not all it's cracked up to be:lol: My people are "Mare of Easttown" (haven't seen it, but from what I read. And yes, that was my accent growing up). I knew all my cousins, first ,second third and fourth. We were all up in each other's business. My father decided for very good reasons to him, but maybe not to her, that his sister's family would not be that involved in his life. And he would tell people why, despite our stiff upper lip nature. And everyone we know is the equivalent of social media and press today. :) Without the private discussions that everyone here seems to want to impose on Harry and Meghan.

We survived and they survived.

If the Henry's of Southwest Philly can do it, so can the Royals ;)
Click to expand...
No one is saying one shouldn’t deal with problems. But badmouthing others doesn’t fix them. It’s okay to go to someone privately for advice. But I live in a world where if you have an issue with someone you discuss it with them.

You don’t bad mouth them to others. Nothing about those interviews fixed the situation.
 
MacMadame said:
They wanted more control over their lives and to be left alone by certain tabloids. That is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
When a celebrity makes a statement suggesting they want more privacy, I generally understand that to mean that they want to be left alone by the press/certain media outlets/tabloids and not that they plan to withdraw from public life. (They have to continue to earn a living after all and no one should expect them to change their profession).

They said they wanted space. If someone tells me they need space, I understand that to mean that someone wants/needs to be left alone.

This is what Harry and Meghan's official website said: https://www.vogue.com/article/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-have-a-privacy-problem
“The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives,”
Click to expand...

I think these interviews are doing the opposite of what they state here. There may not be the "public interest" justification anymore but they are generating attention and they are probably getting the most attention from the very media outlets they wanted to get away from and I would imagine that they're generating the kind of toxic "articles" that led Harry to make the decision of leaving in the first place.
I also think it's fair to interpret this and everything else they've said in that regard as them desiring more privacy. (Just like it's fair to interpret Harry's comments about "media" to be about certain outlets and not all of them).

None of that changes the fact that they, like every celebrity, have a basic right to privacy and that no tabloid or other media should invade said privacy.
 
Last edited:
cygnus said:
Good for your family, el Henry. But if someone in your family wanted to go to the press about family issues and settle it on Oprah or in the Sunday Mirror would anyone have cared? Would the paparazzi camp outside your home? Could you get a Netflix show? Would it be headline news? Nobody would care about my family either. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
Not only that would your family member get death theats would your kids potentially have to hear about it in school?

Because Kate got death threats.
 
becca said:
Not only that would your family member get death theats would your kids potentially have to hear about it in school?

Because Kate got death threats.
Click to expand...

Why are we acting like the royal family is just a regular family? They are literally an institution that is funded by the public. So if they are behaving in a way that violates public trust or the image of whatever it is they are trying to hold up, it should be called out publicly. Death threats are of course never acceptable, but I think it is important to acknowledge that the royal family is a business funded by the public so talking about them like there are some poor, victimized private family is a bit ridiculous.
 
jenny12 said:
Why are we acting like the royal family is just a regular family? They are literally an institution that is funded by the public. So if they are behaving in a way that violates public trust or the image of whatever it is they are trying to hold up, it should be called out publicly. Death threats are of course never acceptable, but I think it is important to acknowledge that the royal family is a business funded by the public so talking about them like there are some poor, victimized private family is a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...
They're a private family in which some people have an official, publicly funded role. If some of them are involved in wrongdoing, by all means there should be repercussions (certainly there should be for Andrew). If they behave inappropriately, criticism isn't just justified, it's in the public interest. But I would argue that this requires specifics, which Harry and Meghan seem disinclined to give ("someone said racist things about our family; no, we won't tell you who because reasons").

I still don't see what these interviews are meant to accomplish. They're not emphasizing the benefits of therapy and mental health services more generally, like the piece that I linked to by James Middleton. They're not going to resolve Harry's issues with his family. Talking to Oprah is not the same as working through one's issues in therapy. I don't really see how any of this is facilitating the objectives of Archewell, either. What is the point of doing this? What's the objective Harry and Meghan are trying to achieve? They're not aiming to be Kardashians so there must be something beyond the visibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)

Similar threads

VGThuy
The Shibutanis Thread 7 . . . Years Later
Replies
10
Views
2K
my little pony
my little pony
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
ISU trying to modernize, is it working?
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
jägerbomb
jägerbomb
peibeck
2025 (78th Annual) Tony Awards
2 3
Replies
88
Views
3K
overedge
overedge
BaileyCatts
The Amazing Race - S37
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
On My Own
O
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
Nostalgia videos
Replies
4
Views
823
sadya
sadya
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information