Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[becca]

L

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.

How is Kate and her fighting over bridesmaids dresses in the public interest?

 

[canbelto]

L

How is Kate and her fighting over bridesmaids dresses in the public interest?

Because the "story" is that Meghan made Kate cry. That was the story that Kate told Tatler magazine in that "Catherine the Great" article.

It's dumb to fight over bridesmaids dresses anyway. WHo cares? They're four.

 

[VGThuy]

The Royal Family uses the press all the time to tell stories they want spread out to the public. It's well-known which publications tend to be monarchy friendly and which ones are not. They even have their own department for press.

Anyway, I'm curious...how did people react when Diana did Panorama (what a trashy name!). A lot of the criticisms at Harry and Meghan can be levied against Diana for doing that as well (as well as a bunch of other things she did to feed the press stories she wanted out there to undermine the royal family). She's still seen as some heroic angel who was a victim by the institution/Firm by a vast plurality of people (or even majority still) despite how QEII's popularity surged since the 2000s.

 

[quartz]

I am both sad and relieved that I missed the “crying over bridesmaid dresses” story.

 

[Jenny]

They even have their own department for press.

Just want to point out that this is not at all unusual - in fact it would be very strange if they didn't have a press office.

 

[VGThuy]

Just want to point out that this is not at all unusual - in fact it would be very strange if they didn't have a press office.

Right. It's not unusual. My point was that they have tools to use the press and have used the press for their benefit. Often. They just work a lot more covertly. Meghan and Harry are working a bit more publicly than royal fans are probably used to.

 

[millyskate]

The Royal Family uses the press all the time to tell stories they want spread out to the public. It's well-known which publications tend to be monarchy friendly and which ones are not. They even have their own department for press.

Anyway, I'm curious...how did people react when Diana did Panorama (what a trashy name!). A lot of the criticisms at Harry and Meghan can be levied against Diana for doing that as well (as well as a bunch of other things she did to feed the press stories she wanted out there to undermine the royal family). She's still seen as some heroic angel who was a victim by the institution/Firm by a vast plurality of people (or even majority still) despite how QEII's popularity surged since the 2000s.

I think there are plenty who weren't fans of the Panorama interview either but you're right in that a lot of the public didn't have the same reaction.
I think the core difference is that people believed Diana and that many genuinely just don't believe Harry and Meghan on a number of their core statements. There are many people sympathetic to the causes of mental health and racism who are finding it incredibly hard to pretend they believe most of their statements when deep down they just don't. I get that for a plethora of reasons, people on either side of the Atlantic have in their majority opposed propensities to believe / disbelieve their statements.
I do not believe this is disingenuous on either side and because both sets of beliefs are sincerely held (and fairly elaborately backed up / reasoned as well) these opposed reactions are likely to perpetuate in time.

With regards to press leaks, it's impossible to know how many of leaked stories about the BRF are leaked intentionally, just as it's impossible to know how many of Meghan's friends talking to the press are doing so with her blessing and which ones are just taking ill-placed initiatives.

 

[VGThuy]

I think there are plenty who weren't fans of the Panorama interview either but you're right in that a lot of the public didn't have the same reaction.
I think the core difference is that people believed Diana and that many genuinely just don't believe Harry and Meghan on a number of their core statements. There are many people sympathetic to the causes of mental health and racism who are finding it incredibly hard to pretend they believe most their statements when deep down they just don't. I get that for a plethora of reasons, people on either side of the Atlantic have in their majority opposed propensities to believe / disbelieve their statements.
I do not believe this is disingenuous on either side and because both sets of beliefs are sincerely held (and fairly elaborately backed up / reasoned as well) these opposed reactions are likely to perpetuate in time.

With regards to press leaks, it's impossible to know how many of leaked stories about the BRF are leaked intentionally, just as it's impossible to know how many of Meghan's friends talking to the press are doing so with her blessing and which ones are just taking ill-placed initiatives.

This is probably the best take I've read so far, and I totally agree.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

I think the argument wasn't about the bridesmaid dresses, it was the circumstances. One or both of them got tense and emotional because Meghan was preparing for a life-defining performance in front of the entire world and Kate was dealing with post-partum mental and physical whiplash. Anyone in those circumstances would be stressed as hell and I don't blame either of them for momentarily losing their cool over some small detail.

 

[MsZem]

Anyway, I'm curious...how did people react when Diana did Panorama (what a trashy name!).

what did I miss?

 

[VGThuy]

what did I miss?

I know panoramic or panorama is a perfectly good word to talk about getting a wide view, and it would be a great name for a news program. However, the way the word "panorama" just sounds and I guess, to me, the sort of nature of her interview with the lowest common denominator interest fodder (I get it, higher-end programs call them "human interest stories") makes it all sound so tabloid. Like "Don't miss tomorrow's episode of PAN-O-RAMA! It's juicy!"

 

[Karen-W]

Because the "story" is that Meghan made Kate cry. That was the story that Kate told Tatler magazine in that "Catherine the Great" article.

It's dumb to fight over bridesmaids dresses anyway. WHo cares? They're four.

Kate didn't cooperate with Tatler for their "Catherine the Great" article and the crying story didn't originate in that publication - in fact, they had to retract part of it because KP objected to some of it (I want to say the parts about Carole). I can’t recall off the top of my head but the crying story came from one of the British tabloids and it was all "unidentified sources" hearsay. Can you please at least TRY to get your "facts" straight when you snipe against Kate/the Cambridges?

 

[Karen-W]

I am both sad and relieved that I missed the “crying over bridesmaid dresses” story.

I pretty much ignored it at the time. I don't even think I clicked on the clickbait link to the original sorry which is why I can't recall which tabloid it was in. I continued to ignore the stupid story when Omid Scobie declared it was a non-event in "Finding Freedom" last summer because it was so dumb. If people are questioning it now it is only because Meghan felt compelled, in the first Oprah interview to "set the record straight." And now people are claiming here in this thread, erroneously, that the story came straight out from Kate or her team. No, it didn't. So damn dumb.

 

[canbelto]

Kate didn't cooperate with Tatler for their "Catherine the Great" article and the crying story didn't originate in that publication - in fact, they had to retract part of it because KP objected to some of it (I want to say the parts about Carole). I can’t recall off the top of my head but the crying story came from one of the British tabloids and it was all "unidentified sources" hearsay. Can you please at least TRY to get your "facts" straight when you snipe against Kate/the Cambridge?

Here's the Tatler article:

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is crowned Catherine the Great on the July/August cover

The future Queen reigns on the cover of our bumper summer issue

www.tatler.com

The Tatler article was touted as an exclusive, inside look at Kate.

And here's the quote:

‘Then there was an incident at the wedding rehearsal,’ another friend of the Cambridges’ claims. ‘It was a hot day and apparently there was a row over whether the bridesmaids should wear tights or not. Kate, following protocol, felt that they should. Meghan didn’t want them to.’

 

[millyskate]

I know panoramic or panorama is a perfectly good word to talk about getting a wide view, and it would be a great name for a news program. However, the way the word "panorama" just sounds and I guess, to me, the sort of nature of her interview with the lowest common denominator interest fodder (I get it, higher-end programs call them "human interest stories") makes it all sound so tabloid. Like "Don't miss tomorrow's episode of PAN-O-RAMA! It's juicy!"

Panorama is a very long-standing investigative journalism program on the BBC and it's often really good (at least I think so!). Sometimes they replace the episodes with topical interviews as was the case with Diana - clearly not one of their best initiatives.

 

[puglover]

Will we ever be rid of the she said/she said over the bloody dresses and tights on the flower girls? That just makes my feminist blood boil. Kate has been associated with the royal family for 20 years and married to William for now 10 and it has never seemed her way to leak critical, hurtful pieces to the media. Meghan, new at the time, just seemed to be trying to fit in and have her perfect wedding. However it was leaked, shame on them, and anyone who keeps repeating it. I bet if the men disagreed on socks there would be no where near such a row or would it be blown up so much.

 

[MacMadame]

Will we ever be rid of the she said/she said over the bloody dresses and tights on the flower girls?

The article is a year old.

 

[puglover]

The article is a year old.

Meaning? It only got legs because it pitted one woman against another.

 

[MacMadame]

Meaning? It only got legs because it pitted one woman against another.

We can't get rid of stuff in the past.

 

[Coco]

I thought the initial claim was that MM made Princess Charlotte cry, which upset Kate. I think H&M were upset that this inaccurate story was not formally shot down.

 

[VGThuy]

Sounds like an episode of Say Yes to the Dress. Too bad none of these people are Kardashians. E! would have captured it all.

 

[becca]

I thought the initial claim was that MM made Princess Charlotte cry, which upset Kate. I think H&M were upset that this inaccurate story was not formally shot down.

Kensington Palace denies rift between Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton

Kensington Palace has broken its silence over media reports of an alleged feud between Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

They did say the rift wasn’t real. To be quite frank though how the heck does
Meghan know Kate didn’t cry. I mean was she there right after.

Protecting Kate and William was always going to be more important given they are the future king and queen. So more care always was going to be there this should have been made clear to Meghan.

But really it was a tabloid and I certainly wasn’t taking it seriously.

She could have denied it without telling the World her sister in law who she says apologized made her cry.

 

[canbelto]

Protecting Kate and William was always going to be more important given they are the future king and queen. So more care always was going to be there this should have been made clear to Meghan.

But really it was a tabloid and I certainly wasn’t taking it seriously.

She could have denied it without telling the World her sister in law who she says apologized made her cry.

And this is why heirs and spares will always be estranged. You can't have a good relationship with someone knowing that person's life has more value than yours.

 

[Karen-W]

Here's the Tatler article:

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is crowned Catherine the Great on the July/August cover

The future Queen reigns on the cover of our bumper summer issue

www.tatler.com

The Tatler article was touted as an exclusive, inside look at Kate.

And here's the quote:

The Tatler article was a regurgitation of the original report about the bridesmaid dress fitting crying incident and came a full year and a half after Camilla Tominey wrote about it in the Telegraph on Nov 26, 2018. Tominey's article was one of the first to discuss 1) the growing frostiness between Meghan and Kate, 2) hinted at the difficulties many royal staffers were having with Meghan's working style, and 3) further expanded Harry's interventions on Meghan's behalf that Robert Jobson wrote about in his book. The relevant section is quoted below:

But the talk of a growing froideur between Kate and Meghan really ramped up following rumours of an apparent falling out between the pair in the run up to the Sussexes’ wedding in May.

The Telegraph has spoken to two separate sources who claim Kate was left in tears following a bridesmaids dress fitting for Princess Charlotte.

“Kate had only just given birth to Prince Louis and was feeling quite emotional,” said one insider.

As I stated earlier, this story has been evolving for well over 2.5 years. First it started out as Meghan made Kate cry, then Omid Scobie claimed, in Finding Freedom (the unauthorized, semi-official Sussex biography), that no one cried at any of the fittings, then Meghan decided she needed to "clear the air/set the record straight" in the Oprah interview in March by telling everyone that it was actually Kate who had made her cry not the other way around.

The whole story was ridiculous at the time (and merited all of three sentences in an extremely long article by Tominey) and I've seen multiple versions of it - the initial argument was about whether or not the bridesmaids should wear tights, Kate was post-partum and emotional, Meghan was emotional over her dad drama, Meghan called Charlotte "fat" because her bridesmaid dress apparently didn't fit properly and that made Kate cry, etc etc etc. My opinion at the time was "eh, maybe Kate did cry but she probably was post-partum emotional, and Meghan was probably being a stereotypical Bridezilla but who wouldn't be if you were marrying the most eligible royal bachelor in the world and an audience of millions would be tuning in, especially with a dad and older half-siblings like she has." And, honestly, not much has changed my opinion about the incident - they both probably cried at some, in retrospect, minor dustup.

But, again, I'm going to ask that you get your "facts" straight when you post about who said or did what, especially when you want to take a swipe at Kate/the Cambridges to support just how wronged and mistreated the Sussexes have been.

 

[Karen-W]

And this is why heirs and spares will always be estranged. You can't have a good relationship with someone knowing that person's life has more value than yours.

Would you please lay off of this utterly ridiculous, crackpot theory about heirs and spares always winding up estranged? There is absolutely nothing you have said in here to back your assertion up that can be supported by any biographical evidence about past "heirs and spares."

Also, you have a really strange view on what makes a life valuable if you think it is only about who inherits the crown. I mean, by your reasoning, Prince Albert Edward (later Edward VII) would have been more valued than his elder sister, Princess Victoria - and to some extent he was, but there is ample biographical evidence to support that Vicky was actually the favorite of her parents and the apple of their eyes. That's not to say that Albert & Victoria didn't love each of their children dearly but Victoria was their pride and joy and they despaired of Albert Edward ever being more than adequate as a future monarch (he wound up doing just fine).

 

[starrynight]

Harry might be lesser on the pecking order than Will, but he himself is higher than Peter Phillips or Zara and in a different universe to a regular person.

 

[puglover]

Well, according to Harry's latest quotes he is the lucky one as he got out and his father and brother are the ones still "stuck". Charles and William seem okay with that so if they all got what they wanted. They all have plenty of love and support, they have beautiful children, and LA probably has more than enough mental health experts to solve the world's problems so jolly good. The funeral for Prince Philip was beautiful, a new baby was born to Eugenie and one is due for Beatrice (sisters I have always felt for) and Lady Louise who was born premature and with eye problems, is following in her grandfather's love of carriage driving. All is not lost!

 

[el henry]

Well, according to Harry's latest quotes he is the lucky one as he got out and his father and brother are the ones still "stuck". Charles and William seem okay with that so if they all got what they wanted. They all have plenty of love and support, they have beautiful children, and LA probably has more than enough mental health experts to solve the world's problems so jolly good. The funeral for Prince Philip was beautiful, a new baby was born to Eugenie and one is due for Beatrice (sisters I have always felt for) and Lady Louise who was born premature and with eye problems, is following in her grandfather's love of carriage driving. All is not lost!

Harry is indeed the lucky one as well, with a beautiful wife and a lovely son and another child on the way. And if his brother and father consider themselves lucky working for the firm, well, good for them too.

All are equally valid, equally classy, equally deserving of respect. ETA: And that does NOT mean Harry should forced into some narrow definition of respect that would be imposed on him. It means his viewpoint and his actions are equally as deserving of respect as the rest of the BRF.
All is not lost indeed

 

[puglover]

Harry is indeed the lucky one as well, with a beautiful wife and a lovely son and another child on the way. And if his brother and father consider themselves lucky working for the firm, well, good for them too.

All are equally valid, equally classy, equally deserving of respect. ETA: And that does NOT mean Harry should forced into some narrow definition of respect that would be imposed on him. It means his viewpoint and his actions are equally as deserving of respect as the rest of the BRF.
All is not lost indeed

I agree that Harry has lots to be grateful for and in no way did I exclude him from my comments of love support and beautiful children. He is also free to express his viewpoints, and he is. I don't have to find it all classy or deserving of my respect. Many others do . So there we differ.

 

[becca]

Harry might be lesser on the pecking order than Will, but he himself is higher than Peter Phillips or Zara and in a different universe to a regular person.

Yes he is.