So, do you believe the royal couples revelations made tonight?

(1000 Posts)
selectabo Mon 08-Mar-21 22:52:04

I did. felt more authentic than I've expected. You?

OP’s posts: |
Lauren15 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:28:39

The annoying thing is Americans will buy that Archie was denied a title. If Oprah was interested in getting to the truth she could have pointed out that the Queen has four Dgcs who are not princes/princesses. Iirc the public expectation when M was pregnant was that Archie would not have a title as people saw M and H as a modern couple.

Cokie3 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:28:13

Slim down the Monarchy - well isn't the timing quite, er.....convenient!

Bullshit!

Cokie3 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:26:58

@ChocolateSantaisthebestkind How many times must it be said? The reason is SECURITY! It's quite clear they don't care about the titles, only the SECURITY that goes with it, because of the DEATH THREATS against Meghan and Archie.

Sittinonthesand Tue 09-Mar-21 14:26:49

Mm also claimed not to have been out of the house for four months at some point (and it was pre lockdown). This seems unlikely- and also why weren’t they busy doing royal engagements? The avocado thing was a reaction to her perceived preachiness and hypocrisy rather than a racist comment. There has been horrible racism and I felt sorry for her and liked her - but the last year and this interview have made me change my mind, I think many of her issues are self inflicted rather than due to racism. She told some whoppers and made Harry look stupid too by implying that he was unable to access the support she needed. He also said he didn’t seek help for her because he was ashamed - pretty devastating for their mh charities to hear.

Cemin00 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:26:12

cyclingmad

This 100% people are twisting what their point was.

The Queen made an exception for Will and Kate children so why not make an exception for theirs? For which she said she received no answer as to why an exception couldn't be made so what is one to assume by that other than racist undertones.

If your going to treat people fairly then be fair to everyone. If they weren't going to make an exception for Archie no exception should of been made for the other children in the first place. They haven't helped themselves by making the exception in the first place.

Hardly. The law of succession was changed to end the system of male primogeniture. They don't change it cos some actress (who ABSOLUTELY doesn't care about titles, no siree!) wants her son's face on the stamps. So the whole family and country are RACIST!

Not like the enlightened bloke to her right, who thought wearing a Nazi armband was a laugh and called an army 'pal' the P-word. British people forgave him for that 'youthful hi-jinks' but now he uses ONE comment - we don't even know what it was - to throw ALL of his family under the bus.

Even better, they were happy to be members of this supposedly appallingly racist Royal Family til they cut off the cash flow (and even that was after ages of them taking the piss, expecting the cash and marketing opportunities for none of the pay!)

There really are no depths to which these entitled dullards won't stoop.

Impatiens Tue 09-Mar-21 14:25:46

DioneTheDiabolist

If they had done an AIBU here, they would be told YANBU and to go NC. They pretty did that and good for them.

I do hope that fences are mended in the future for the Sussexes and the RF. Backing Andrew over Megan and Harry was a stupid move on the Queen's part.

Would they be told YANBU - I don't think so.

How can you mend fences that have been reduced to a pile of ash??

pennylane83 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:25:29

I think She was saying that even when Charles takes the throne Archie and his sister will not get the titles even though all the other grandchildren will

Which is why she thinks it’s down to race

Only it isn't to do with race. Charles's desire to want to slim down the monarchy once he takes the throne are well known and was being talked about long before Meghan was even on the scene.

As it stands, Harry's children would automatically inherit the title of prince/princess once Charles becomes king. However, Charles wants to slim down I assume because having princes and princesses all over the shop causes confusion and the title brings with it notority and thus protection issues (you can't exactly live a private life if all and sundry have to refer to you as prince xx). The title muddies the water in terms of what we, the public, assume that persons responsibilities to be and their position within the hieracrchy. Its very apparent from all the comments that Joe Public doesn't really understand the technicalities and protocol of titles as the majority of us don't mix in those circles.

Just having William's children as princes and princess makes the heirachal nature of which child is the next direct heir to the throne obvious and fits with the slimming down that Charles wants - only royals with a direct succession get the coverage and perform the royal roll.

However, as Harry is and always will be the son of the king (when that happens) it does seem off that his choice on whether or not his children should adopt the title (as the grandchildren of the then king) has been taken away from him (if that is indeed the case - it may just be that they wanted it now rather than waiting). Whichever way you look at it though, it really does reinforce the heir and the spare narrative in that he will always be the lesser person.

The issue at play here is his relationship with his own father and that duty to Charles is deemed more important than him as a son.

ChocolateSantaisthebestkind Tue 09-Mar-21 14:24:11

@RantyAnty No one is disputing that. What they are disputing is why did they want to remain linked to and have all the associated trappings then?! Because they are spoiled brats who like all the goodies and none of the dreack and think they have a divine right to it

FedNlanders Tue 09-Mar-21 14:22:12

No

randomer Tue 09-Mar-21 14:21:43

Sorry but the preacher was an embarrassment.What on earth was he on about? I had to hide behind a cushion.

Iamdobby63 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:21:09

cyclingmad

This 100% people are twisting what their point was.

The Queen made an exception for Will and Kate children so why not make an exception for theirs? For which she said she received no answer as to why an exception couldn't be made so what is one to assume by that other than racist undertones.

If your going to treat people fairly then be fair to everyone. If they weren't going to make an exception for Archie no exception should of been made for the other children in the first place. They haven't helped themselves by making the exception in the first place.

Because they are further down the line of succession. Why should there be an exception made for Archie and any subsequent children at the vast expense of the British tax payer? Why couldn’t they pay for their own children’s security?

RantyAnty Tue 09-Mar-21 14:20:29

I believe them.

It's no secret the long history of colonialism and racism in the monarchy.

Cokie3 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:19:55

PowerhouseMamma

I have actually studied MH quite a bit and worked in a role where this was a big part of it. I would usually be the first person to believe a claim of needing MH help.
,
Unfortunately, MM has done and said too many things for her to have my vote. If I knew her in person, I would always make sure I left the room backwards.

She has acted like a Hollywood Diva from the start, with the worst behaviour being when she had the whole stand in Wimbledon closed down just for her and then some poor bloke was hassled for taking a non-photo. The whole "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets" bratty behaviour. The way she treats her paternal family, especially her dad. Not wanting her own family at the wedding but inviting celebrities she doesn't even know. Telling the British public that they were married 3 days before we thought they got married. This is insulting to the British people.

I don't dispute that the BRF is rotten to the core because of the very nature of their existence. They need reforming.

There is no need to take sides in this. The whole thing stinks.

WRT Harry. He is not very intelligent, he has little real support network and is vulnerable. He is a perfect victim for a narcissist.

@PowerhouseMamma It's clear you haven't 'studied' her very well or if you had, it has been through the trash tabloids.

She did not demand the stadium be closed. That was security detail that did that, without her knowledge.

You are painting her father as the victim? Haven't you read how he and Samantha and her half-brother have exploited her, sold her out, told lies about her? Not wanting her ABUSIVE family at the wedding (well, DUH!!) is a sin? Wthe absolute f? You're victim-blaming is disgraceful! Utterly disgusting and disgraceful! If she posted on here about her narcissistic father, sister and brother, she would be supported and sent to the Stately Homes thread on here. But because it's Meghan, she somehow 'deserves' to be used and abused by her own narc family.

And the less said about your 'oh Harry (who HATES the press and always has done, far more than Meghan) is an innocent victim of the bad, manipulative and scheming woman' sexist bs the better.

It's clear you know absolutely nothing at all and get your 'info' 100% from filthy tabloid lies. That to me, says that you're not very intelligent and perhaps have narc tendencies yourself.

Angelica789 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:19:43

They made an exception for William’s children because they are quite high up in the pecking order. George is 3rd in line to the throne. In 1905 I expect they didn’t envision a monarch having several great grandchildren. How many people lived to 93 back then?

DioneTheDiabolist Tue 09-Mar-21 14:19:16

If they had done an AIBU here, they would be told YANBU and to go NC. They pretty did that and good for them.

I do hope that fences are mended in the future for the Sussexes and the RF. Backing Andrew over Megan and Harry was a stupid move on the Queen's part.

ChocolateSantaisthebestkind Tue 09-Mar-21 14:18:30

@cyclingmad because Archie is 6th in line to the throne and a GGC. PC and PL were granted their titles because W&K did not want them to be unequal compared to their brother, until Charles became King. Same as Diana insisted on W&H being treated equally as brothers. Charle's plans to slim down the Monarchy has been known for at least a decade. Harry knew/knows the score, he's stirring the shit. He seems very like PM, jealous and annoyed about his decreasing importance to me.

Allington Tue 09-Mar-21 14:18:23

The Queen made an exception for Will and Kate children so why not make an exception for theirs?

Because William is the future king (on current circumstances, assuming no abolition of monarchy, early death etc) Monarchy is based on that principle, so unless M&H have become republicans, then that is what they buy into. The only noteworthy thing H has done in his life is being born into a system where accident of birth matters. So he can't really take the benefits and then complain that accident of birth is unfair when it doesn't give him/his child the prominence he wants.

MimiDaisy11 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:18:22

cyclingmad

This 100% people are twisting what their point was.

The Queen made an exception for Will and Kate children so why not make an exception for theirs? For which she said she received no answer as to why an exception couldn't be made so what is one to assume by that other than racist undertones.

If your going to treat people fairly then be fair to everyone. If they weren't going to make an exception for Archie no exception should of been made for the other children in the first place. They haven't helped themselves by making the exception in the first place.

Monarchies aren't about equality and fairness - even within the royal family. William is second in line. Harry is much further down. You get treated differently.

OverweightPidgeon Tue 09-Mar-21 14:17:44

Whoever leaked the story about the upset over bridesmaid dresses should be held to account- I take it this episode happened in a private setting and would have been settled, as it was , between the two women , and no one would be any the wiser .

MimiDaisy11 Tue 09-Mar-21 14:15:58

Wasn't the role of Harry's wife/girlfriend always going to be tough for the woman who took it? The tabloids were always going to do a rivalry thing with Kate and being further down the pecking order in the royal family means they were going to be more fair game.

carcarbinks Tue 09-Mar-21 14:14:39

DioneTheDiabolist

*I await the Palace’s version for balance*

You've already had the Palace's version. They told you that Megan made Catherine cry and that she was a pushy, nightmare and a bully. This interview was held in part to "correct" the palace's version.

This was not from the palace - it was from the press.

FanFckingTastic Tue 09-Mar-21 14:14:13

I believe that it is 'their' truth. I don't necessarily believe that it's 'the' truth. Unfortunately some of what they have said (e.g. we were married three days before the wedding) has proven to be a falsehood, which then casts suspicion on other elements in their story.

cyclingmad Tue 09-Mar-21 14:13:55

This 100% people are twisting what their point was.

The Queen made an exception for Will and Kate children so why not make an exception for theirs? For which she said she received no answer as to why an exception couldn't be made so what is one to assume by that other than racist undertones.

If your going to treat people fairly then be fair to everyone. If they weren't going to make an exception for Archie no exception should of been made for the other children in the first place. They haven't helped themselves by making the exception in the first place.

ChocolateSantaisthebestkind Tue 09-Mar-21 14:11:41

Is it just me who found the 'garden wedding' thing really childish? I had images of kids under the climbing frame in the playground when they said it. I think they are both very traumatized by their parents' divorces and have some kind of arrested development around relationships and security because of it. That being said, I also believe they have insight and that they are using this behaviour to get what they want, however, I don't think they can be judged as people in their late 30s/early 40s.

derxa Tue 09-Mar-21 14:11:26

bogoffmda

It is what they believe - where the truth lies no one knows.

We all have issues with our families most of do not take adverts out on social media to publicise them. We either avoid those elements we do not like or we get on with life.

Have no issue with them leaving, do have issue with them continuing to make monies from the thing they wanted to leave but not contributing to the work. They want privacy but don't want publicity except on their terms and to drive their next scheme.

Don't believe some of this - they both know how to access mental health support and if they don't what are they advocating for.
And definitiely struggle with the concept that being rude to MM was always racist but just rude to KM - there is a double standard there - I recall issues about her Jewish relatives being brought up at one point.

Actually find the whole thing quite sad for both of them - cut themselves off from both their families but they are in a little world of their own, being fed propaganda by people who are no more looking out for them than they perceive the RF weren't

Yes

This thread is not accepting new messages.