The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

Karen-W

Checking Senior Bs for TES mins...
Messages
34,958
Windsor is a totally fake name anyway. Their actual last name should be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
🙄Who cares? They were immigrants who changed their last name to better assimilate with their new homeland. Hardly the first family to do that, especially in that era.
 

Coco

Rotating while Russian!
Messages
18,466
🙄Who cares? They were immigrants who changed their last name to better assimilate with their new homeland. Hardly the first family to do that, especially in that era.
This is the funniest characterization of how that name change happened that I have ever read.
 

Karen-W

Checking Senior Bs for TES mins...
Messages
34,958
This is the funniest characterization of how that name change happened that I have ever read.
Lol. Well, in essence, that is what happened. Granted, George V had excellent reasons for changing the family name, but so did anyone with the last name of Hitler post-WWII and we know that occurred. Times have certainly changed with regard to changing or keeping a family name in order to "fit in," but it was absolutely the norm in the early 20th century.
 

On My Own

Worktotaler
Messages
4,951
Good grief, did she pee in your cornflakes?

I can't imagine feeling such a deep and visceral hatred for either of these young women, especially when we really know so very little about them.
How is Kate young woman for you, she's like 7 years younger
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
28,656
One thing I fault Kate for is this: when Meghan "set the record straight" as to who made the other cry, Kate's response was that it was 'unnecessary" to bring up the subject again. That's a pretty cowardly thing to say if true. To this day I don't have any idea what happened at that dress fitting but that comment really rubbed me the wrong way. If Kate made Meghan cry & then refused to take ownership at the time that is when they started painting Meghan as a horrible person. That's when all the non-proven stories about Meghan happened.

The other thing about Kate is that she "visually shuddered" when someone mentioned Meghan's name. That's bullying.
 

MsZem

I see the sea
Messages
18,375
One thing I fault Kate for is this: when Meghan "set the record straight" as to who made the other cry, Kate's response was that it was 'unnecessary" to bring up the subject again. That's a pretty cowardly thing to say if true. To this day I don't have any idea what happened at that dress fitting but that comment really rubbed me the wrong way. If Kate made Meghan cry & then refused to take ownership at the time that is when they started painting Meghan as a horrible person. That's when all the non-proven stories about Meghan happened.

The other thing about Kate is that she "visually shuddered" when someone mentioned Meghan's name. That's bullying.
Oh, you've faulted her for many things.

Kate had to deal with all the wedding drama when she was in her third trimester and then barely postpartum - and we know that she has difficult pregnancies. Maybe she just didn't feel like this was a subject worthy of further discussion. Maybe she shuddered because it wasn't a good memory for her. Clearly she's not the one rehashing all of it and refusing to move forward.

Honestly, Kate is so unobjectionable in her interests and conduct that I feel like people are either projecting things on to her or inventing them out of whole cloth.
 

airgelaal

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,010
One thing I fault Kate for is this: when Meghan "set the record straight" as to who made the other cry, Kate's response was that it was 'unnecessary" to bring up the subject again. That's a pretty cowardly thing to say if true. To this day I don't have any idea what happened at that dress fitting but that comment really rubbed me the wrong way. If Kate made Meghan cry & then refused to take ownership at the time that is when they started painting Meghan as a horrible person. That's when all the non-proven stories about Meghan happened.

The other thing about Kate is that she "visually shuddered" when someone mentioned Meghan's name. That's bullying.
What if, on the contrary, it was Meghan who made Kate cry? And if she had said this openly, can you imagine what would have happened?
I don’t know what really happened there, but I’m sure it was best not to comment.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
21,791
The other thing about Kate is that she "visually shuddered" when someone mentioned Meghan's name. That's bullying.
I strongly disagree that shuddering when someone's name is mentioned is bullying. That's a massive discredit to the very serious issue of bullying. It's frustrating how often people throw this word around when there are people among us, too many of them children, who are experiencing bullying in ways that are deeply damaging and sometimes even fatal.

I don't know the context of this - in what way Meghan was referenced, how Kate actually did react, and what she was reacting to (as @MsZem notes, it might have been to an incident or memory that has more to do with Kate than Meghan). I mean who among has hasn't done a little shudder or an eyeroll or a sigh when something or someone is mentioned for whatever reasons?
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
28,656
Oh, you've faulted her for many things.

Kate had to deal with all the wedding drama when she was in her third trimester and then barely postpartum - and we know that she has difficult pregnancies. Maybe she just didn't feel like this was a subject worthy of further discussion. Maybe she shuddered because it wasn't a good memory for her. Clearly she's not the one rehashing all of it and refusing to move forward.

Honestly, Kate is so unobjectionable in her interests and conduct that I feel like people are either projecting things on to her or inventing them out of whole cloth.
Name something else I faulted her for. BTW she shuddered simply at Meghan's name this past summer, not back when the wedding was happening. And back then she didn't have to attend anything that she wasn't well enough for. She didn't HAVE to micromanage Charlotte's dress, there were experienced seamstresses to take care of that. IME the mother of the flower girl/bridesmaid doesn't usually have any role in someone's wedding.

I agree bullying is a serious topic but if you do it just one time it's still bullying.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,350
Honestly, Kate is so unobjectionable in her interests and conduct that I feel like people are either projecting things on to her or inventing them out of whole cloth.

I'm not inventing that Caribbean tour, in which she and William stood like Juan and Eva Peron in their cars for a parade. Then they proceeded to cringe when shaking hands with people through a chained fence.

That tour was such a nightmare of colonialist optics that it is inconceivable that they thought any of it was a good idea.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
28,656
I'm not inventing that Caribbean tour, in which she and William stood like Juan and Eva Peron in their cars for a parade. Then they proceeded to cringe when shaking hands with people through a chained fence.

That tour was such a nightmare of colonialist optics that it is inconceivable that they thought any of it was a good idea.
The photos you provided don't illustrate your point. They just look their usual smiling selves.
 

MLIS

Well-Known Member
Messages
532
I think It`s all very sad. Because Harry was publicly sending out signals that he wanted to try to get back into the fold and let bygones be bygones. Even Meghan seemed to have realized that the constant negativity was bad for their brand and no option in order to move forward with new ventures. But they went to bed with that leechy type Scobie, used him for their own purposes and lost control in the end. So it`s all of their own making and at least, if it was me, if Harry doesn`t react to the new allegations publicly, this would be the final straw. No way back into the fold of the family. If it was in any way possible the trust is more shattered than before.

And who besides Canbelto really believes that Charles or Catherine would say something of malicious intent in terms of race about a baby to Harry? I think it`s actually in the favour of the UK part of the Royal family that the names are out. Because I would totally have believed other people in the extended family of uttering things with underlying or even open racism. Or using that to show an outsider their place.
I think this is an interesting point, that Harry and Meghan have used Scobie before, but now when they might be ready to move on they’ve already let him in and given him sources and information and now they’ve lost control of him and his narrative. I do think if they want anyone to believe they didn’t collude with him on this they need to do more than have “close friends say” to distance themselves.

If we want to talk about bullying, there were multiple reports that Meghan and Jessica Mulroney bullied Princess Charlotte, a small child, during the wedding preparations. If there’s even a whiff of truth to that, I can see why William and Kate were not in a hurry to bring their children to Lilibet’s birthday party, which was also held on a weekend where their family already had multiple commitments as part of the Jubilee weekend. If I had even an inkling that a family member had shamed and bullied my child over the fit of a flower girl dress, that family member would never see my child again. And neither would anyone else who suggested I should make nice or play happy family. I think William and Kate have lots of reasons to be wary of exposing their children to Harry and Meghan right now that have nothing to do with the racial make up of H&M’s children or the colour of their skin.

There are also many reports that William came home from the Caribbean tour well aware of the optics of some of the events and had many meetings with his staff and diplomatic officials (who are the ones who planned the tour, after all) to make sure it wouldn’t happen again.

I think white privilege and unconscious bias are a big part of the skin colour discussion. I can fully believe people thought they were idly wondering or musing, without malice or ill intent, but when you’ve never had your skin colour be even something anyone notices about you, you don’t necessarily realize the context and weight and deeper meaning those kinds of comments can have. It’s not an appropriate thing to say, but it’s also not necessarily an indication that they would refuse to accept the child.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,350
Omid Scobie is an old-fashioned "royal reporter" like Andrew Morton. Andrew Morton never said anything unless Diana said it was okay to say. Same with Omid Scobie on H/M. Anything he says came straight from the mouth of H/M.
 

Kruss

Not Auto-Tuned
Messages
4,219
BTW she shuddered simply at Meghan's name this past summer, not back when the wedding was happening.

20 years past some of the deepest hurts I've gotten from two separate people, I still shudder or react when I hear or see their names. Especially since I often come across one's name on legal papers at work.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,699
It would be interesting to know how the Sussexes feel about this latest book and especially the timing of it. It sounds quite credible that Harry did have a warmer conversation with his father for his birthday and Charles spoke with Meghan and the children sang Happy Birthday to him. They also have apparently made it known that they would accept a Christmas invitation to Sandringham and come with their children. The royal correspondents I follow felt that it was unlikely they would receive an invite to Sandringham as more of the Queen's family are joining them this year and it is not a huge residence. However, they did think it very possible they would have received an invitation to Scotland when the King goes there after Christmas. All bets are off now.

Much of their allegations still don't add up for me. Prince Harry obviously knew well his father's strengths and weaknesses and was very close to Catherine for years, and he certainly did not seem to be concerned as to their acceptance that he was marrying a woman of colour. In fact, in one of his earliest interviews, he was very critical of Meghan's family and glad she was becoming a member of his. Something the Markles did not appreciate.

A huge question for me was and remains: if things were so bad for Prince Harry and Meghan - racism, withholding help for mental illness, meanness, etc. from his own family, why did they want to stay on half time and continue as working royals? Prince Harry very obviously was majorly disappointed that the decision from the powers that be was, take it or leave it. Would they really have been happy living in the UK and carrying out royal duties for 6 months of the year, not to mention, abiding by the many rules that apply?

And what of poor, old Thomas Markle? Wasn't his major gaff speaking to the media and having a few pictures taken of him buying a suit or something? Will he ever get to see his grandchldren? Everything I have read indicate he was a responsible, caring father to Meghan who contributed greatly in helping her reach success.
 

mattiecat13

Well-Known Member
Messages
742
I think It`s all very sad. Because Harry was publicly sending out signals that he wanted to try to get back into the fold and let bygones be bygones. Even Meghan seemed to have realized that the constant negativity was bad for their brand and no option in order to move forward with new ventures.
IMO the only reason Harry (I’m sure with Meg’s approval) was trying to get back into the fold is because he realized how irrelevant he and Meghan were without the cachet of the Royal Family. There is more money to be made and more invitations to high-profile events with the RF association than without it.
 

Rainbow

Well-Known Member
Messages
459
IMO the only reason Harry (I’m sure with Meg’s approval) was trying to get back into the fold is because he realized how irrelevant he and Meghan were without the cachet of the Royal Family. There is more money to be made and more invitations to high-profile events with the RF association than without it.
Yes, I`m sure that`s a big part of the motivation. Still, I also think Harry is starting to realize, that being essentially without family from both sides is lonely business. Also it`s extremly ironic that by beeing so desperate to control the narrative via "surrogate" they gave this pathetic guy all the control. And in the process another lie is exposed, if indeed true, that Scobie even saw letters between Charles and Harry/Meghan. The names and conversation they were never going to share?
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
57,711
But they didn't. They hightailed it out of the UK and were done. No one said they had to move or disrupt their plans to live half in North America and half in the UK.
They weren't able to negotiate the 6 months on/6 months off so they left but IIRC they were still planning to return and only changed their minds when shit went down.

And who besides Canbelto really believes that Charles or Catherine would say something of malicious intent in terms of race about a baby to Harry?
I completely believe Charles would say something like that and while he didn't do it to be malicious, that doesn't make it okay.

I'm not inventing that Caribbean tour, in which she and William stood like Juan and Eva Peron in their cars for a parade. Then they proceeded to cringe when shaking hands with people through a chained fence.
You are inventing their behavior as no photo you have posted supports your claims.

A huge question for me was and remains: if things were so bad for Prince Harry and Meghan - racism, withholding help for mental illness, meanness, etc. from his own family, why did they want to stay on half time and continue as working royals? Prince Harry very obviously was majorly disappointed that the decision from the powers that be was, take it or leave it.
He's been trained from birth that his duty is to do these things. I can see that he still wanted to help out/do his duty while also stepping back a bit. Their mistake IMO is trying to do 6 on/6 off. That's just not practical. If they are sponsoring a charity, they need to be available whenever that charity does things that require their patron to be present regardless of what time of the year it is.

What I think they should have done was step back by taking on fewer duties and more duties that would allow them to live abroad at least part of the time. i.e., things where it would make sense to make a trip back or where duties didn't require a physical presence most of the time.

Would they really have been happy living in the UK and carrying out royal duties for 6 months of the year, not to mention, abiding by the many rules that apply?
Probably not but people aren't always self-aware. 🤷

And what of poor, old Thomas Markle? Wasn't his major gaff speaking to the media and having a few pictures taken of him buying a suit or something? Will he ever get to see his grandchldren? Everything I have read indicate he was a responsible, caring father to Meghan who contributed greatly in helping her reach success.
Meh. He did more than speak to the media and have pictures taken. He dissed her to the media for starters. If it was me, I wouldn't let my kids around him either. I couldn't trust him not to use the kids the next time he needed some money.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,699
Frankly, as a woman, I hate the whole who made who cry business. One woman was postpartum with a new baby (4 weeks old) and the other under considerable pressure to have the most picture perfect wedding, while dealing with drama from her own family. Small wonder if something really irrelevant got blown up and resulted in a few tears. Shame on the media for mentioning it at all and I wish Meghan had said basically that in the Oprah interview.
 

kwanfan1818

RIP D-10
Messages
37,489
He's been trained from birth that his duty is to do these things. I can see that he still wanted to help out/do his duty while also stepping back a bit. Their mistake IMO is trying to do 6 on/6 off. That's just not practical. If they are sponsoring a charity, they need to be available whenever that charity does things that require their patron to be present regardless of what time of the year it is.
From two friends I know who ran charities for which then-Prince Charles was their patron, most charities have fixed schedules for when they have events where the patron would be physically present, and anything outside of that is known well in advance, like opening a new building. The working Royals' schedules aren't "show up on short notice": they are planned well in advance. There are charities and events that would have worked within an on/off schedule as well as a lighter schedule.

I understand why a tradition-entrenched institution would balk at their offer, but the hardest-working member of the family, Princess Anne, is 73. The King and Queen have had to curtail their schedule once crowned, and the workhorses aren't getting any younger, with more of the younger generation out of it. Prince William's children are far away from taking on any kind of robust schedule.

From a younger person's standpoint, it was win-win: they'd have two of the more popular and charismatic family members, one of whom appealed to a percentage of the population who had been widely ignored, and the other of whom was a tie to Princess Diana, to whom some people are still heavily attached, pulling a heavy load when they were "on". It would alleviate some of the crunch that is being felt now with the King and Queen's reduced patron schedule, plus the fact that they are not getting any younger. It was naive to think it would be accepted.

I don't know how much the cut-backs to the the physical presence of the family over time will play out, but it's not like Prince William is lighting up the arena.
 

Judy

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,457
I didn’t even know there was a book until late night. They are a f*cked up family what’s left to be said. Andrew is not residing in Frogmore either.
 
Last edited:

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,699
They weren't able to negotiate the 6 months on/6 months off so they left but IIRC they were still planning to return and only changed their minds when shit went down.


I completely believe Charles would say something like that and while he didn't do it to be malicious, that doesn't make it okay.


You are inventing their behavior as no photo you have posted supports your claims.


He's been trained from birth that his duty is to do these things. I can see that he still wanted to help out/do his duty while also stepping back a bit. Their mistake IMO is trying to do 6 on/6 off. That's just not practical. If they are sponsoring a charity, they need to be available whenever that charity does things that require their patron to be present regardless of what time of the year it is.

What I think they should have done was step back by taking on fewer duties and more duties that would allow them to live abroad at least part of the time. i.e., things where it would make sense to make a trip back or where duties didn't require a physical presence most of the time.


Probably not but people aren't always self-aware. 🤷


Meh. He did more than speak to the media and have pictures taken. He dissed her to the media for starters. If it was me, I wouldn't let my kids around him either. I couldn't trust him not to use the kids the next time he needed some money.
Well, as I recall, initially (pre wedding) he staged photos with the paparazzi for money. As the years have gone on and he appears to be more hurt and desperate, he has certainly been critical of them. If they want to be welcomed back into the fold, perhaps they have to realize they also have caused an enormous amount of hurt with Harry's family by their public statements and things said "on their behalf" - a practice they have claimed to really hate.
 

airgelaal

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,010
Frankly, as a woman, I hate the whole who made who cry business. One woman was postpartum with a new baby (4 weeks old) and the other under considerable pressure to have the most picture perfect wedding, while dealing with drama from her own family. Small wonder if something really irrelevant got blown up and resulted in a few tears. Shame on the media for mentioning it at all and I wish Meghan had said basically that in the Oprah interview.
That's right. This is one of those situations when it makes no sense to find out who is right and who is to blame.

He's been trained from birth that his duty is to do these things. I can see that he still wanted to help out/do his duty while also stepping back a bit. Their mistake IMO is trying to do 6 on/6 off. That's just not practical. If they are sponsoring a charity, they need to be available whenever that charity does things that require their patron to be present regardless of what time of the year it is.
I have already said that, as it seems to me, the problem was that there was no trust in Meghan and Harry. I don't mean a negative context, just an experience. I am talking about their experience as a senior member of the royal family.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,699
The whole idea of royal patronages is quite fascinating dating back 900 years. Apparently, Queen Elizabeth supported 600 charities herself. The big "get" is Princess Catherine as 42% of those asked would be more likely to support a charity with her patronage. It seems the royals themselves, as with celebrities, want to lend their names and support to charities that have personal relevance - eg: Queen Camilla is a patron of the National Osteoporosis Society as her mother and sister died of the disease.

Currently, there are a large number of charities that are without their patron and it remains to be seen how Buckingham Palace will deal with this going forward.
 

once_upon

If life gives you lemons, be an orange
Messages
29,696
Maybe we just need a knock out drag out fight over the two women, because the rest of the world is too much to deal with.

The cruelty of war, the disparity of wealth/poverty, climate issues..things that feels out of control. It's just too much for us to deal/think of the real issues.

Instead, let's go around bashing two women who married into a dysfunctional family. Let's make one of those women as inherently good and the other deliberately evil.

Better yet let's make both of them evil and you get a card with a C or M. Each of us who choose to participate in the game, gets a bingo card and must fill in each square with a picture, gossip rag or book passage that "proves" that your C or M is the innocent person. When you fill 50 Bingo cards you get a reward of some sort. Maybe 50 more Bingo cards. Maybe new cards with Charlotte or Lilibet in place if Catherine/Meghan.

This family is dysfunctional, we just get to see it play out in public. We enjoy in placing ourselves in the middle of this family's drama.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,606
If we want to talk about bullying, there were multiple reports that Meghan and Jessica Mulroney bullied Princess Charlotte, a small child, during the wedding preparations. If there’s even a whiff of truth to that, I can see why William and Kate were not in a hurry to bring their children to Lilibet’s birthday party, which was also held on a weekend where their family already had multiple commitments as part of the Jubilee weekend.
There were reports about a culture clash when Meghan was first introduced to the family, so the question is, was it bullying or was it a maybe overwhelmed/shy little girl, a pregnant/post-partum mother and a bride under pressure from a very different culture?

It's no secret that I don't agree with how this exit went down but I think it's very possible it was the latter and there were just a lot of wires which got crossed. Add to that that this family does not seem to be the "okay, we've got an issue let's talk about it" type and Harry who does not seem to have prepared his bride properly to what was about to come and you've got a lot of (cultural) misunderstandings and all these rumors about bullying and someone being mean to the other.

Meh. He did more than speak to the media and have pictures taken. He dissed her to the media for starters. If it was me, I wouldn't let my kids around him either. I couldn't trust him not to use the kids the next time he needed some money.
True. On the other hand, Harry and Meghan aired the family's dirty laundry for money as well and they did so knowing there'd be no rebuke.
I don't think that makes what Meghan's father did okay, I just think that, as I said, they need to take a look in the mirror before pointing fingers. As the saying goes: do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. 🤷‍♀️

From a younger person's standpoint, it was win-win: they'd have two of the more popular and charismatic family members, one of whom appealed to a percentage of the population who had been widely ignored, and the other of whom was a tie to Princess Diana, to whom some people are still heavily attached, pulling a heavy load when they were "on". It would alleviate some of the crunch that is being felt now with the King and Queen's reduced patron schedule, plus the fact that they are not getting any younger. It was naive to think it would be accepted.

I don't know how much the cut-backs to the the physical presence of the family over time will play out, but it's not like Prince William is lighting up the arena.
You have a point, still, I think that would only have been possible had they reached some sort of a financial arrangement. Harry and Meghan didn't want to reside in the UK full time, so stepping back would have required frequent back and forth between the US and the UK and UK taxpayers would have had to pay for that. I don't think that would have been fair.
The question is if Harry and Meghan would have even wanted to have to travel frequently with a small child (and then two) and from LA no less. That's a 10+ hour flight and an 8 hour time difference every time.
While I think the 6/6 idea sounds a bit like having your cake and eat it, too, in terms of cost, quality of life and environmental impact it was the most practical solution.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
28,656
Frankly, as a woman, I hate the whole who made who cry business. One woman was postpartum with a new baby (4 weeks old) and the other under considerable pressure to have the most picture perfect wedding, while dealing with drama from her own family. Small wonder if something really irrelevant got blown up and resulted in a few tears. Shame on the media for mentioning it at all and I wish Meghan had said basically that in the Oprah interview.
I agree this was mostly a non-issue that became common knowledge. Who leaked this? Does anyone think it was Meghan who is shown in a bad light. Or some helpful palace employee wanting to create the good princess/bad princess scenero? And so it started.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,699
As a first generation Canadian of British/Scottish/Irish heritage, I have always had a great love for the queen and respect for the monarchy. I realize I am a minority in Canada now and I sincerely hope that the inevitable changes happen after my death as I would dearly love to die a British subject, or whatever I am. The title of the new book "End Game" is quite interesting as we know there are those who greatly oppose the British monarchy and would love to see its demise, that being their end game. Where do Prince Harry and Meghan stand on this? Harry has been quoted as saying his goal in airing all he has is to help future members of the royal family. In all the attacks on his brother, the future king, and his wife, does he ever wonder if he is doing irreparable damage and playing into the anti-monarchy crowds hands. Dream come true for them - have one of their own turn on them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information