Anyone in the US? Did you watch the Meghan interview?

[Tankflybosswalkjam]

Apparently it’s already been broadcast!

[quote BelleSausage]@intheenddoesitreallymatter

The negative coverage of Kate only really stopped once she had the kids. Also because William took a strong stance in injunctions for negative coverage once they were engaged.

As second in line he has never had the choice really to leave.

Again, what happened to Meghan was awful and racist. But the British press have form- Diana, poor Caroline Flack and others.

Let’s not pretend that this was only all about her. The British press are disgusting. I’m not sure how that can be pinned on the Queen or other members of the royal family. We have no idea what their relationships are like.

But I suspect that you are so anti-royal that you won’t listen to sensible discuss.

I feel sorry for Meghan and Harry. They obviously had to move. But doing a tell all interview to reveal intimate details of your family relationships is super tacky and disrespectful. I now feel more sorry for the poor Queen- who is currently having to cope with her elderly husband’s illness, a stupid reckless son and now this. And she never gets a right to reply. Harry and Meghan know they can say what ever they like and it will never be rebutted because the Queen has never given personal interviews on family topics.

Meghan is ‘breaking her silence’ in the full knowledge that nothing she or Harry say can ever be challenged which I think is monstrously unfair of them.[/quote]
British Press are deplorable, in fact most press are. They thrive on salacious gossip.

However, let's not place William in an ivory tower. Like his brother, he's a marked man, have we forgotten the supposed affair with Rose Hanbury that was again covered up by the royal press office? It's also not about William's dedication to his family, he too has a choice to leave, but he won't, because he wants to be King.

Let's not act like abdication is impossible.

Megan Markle is the new Wallis Spencer to a degree. Edward walked because he didn't want to conform anymore, he wanted to be a man not a royal.

It's somewhat insulting that you assume I'm beneath a sensible discussion. I am not. I feel extremely for the Queen at this time and I feel the timing of the interview (as the interview itself) is very crass, especially when his Grandfather may be lying on his death bed.

However, the Queen is not a blameless figure. She has been the matriarch of the entire family for decades what has fallen at her door is the making of her own doing.

Also her son is not stupid and reckless, he is a known associate of a pedophile and very possibly a child rapist who has been protected by said royal family. Don't feel sorry for the royal family, feel sorry for Andrew's victims.

If we remove who they are and pretend they are Mr and Mrs Joe Public.

If this is about 'family', which of us would go on air and be interviewed about our family & private life? My family would be devastated at the breach of confidentiality and of course it would be detrimental to our relationship. My family wouldn't want or have the chance to give their view - 'two sides' and all that.

If this is about 'work', (as working Royals) , which of you would go on air and talk about their employer. I work in education (public sector, LA). There is loads I would love to share in an interview, but it would breach 'confidentiality' and I would be sacked. It would be detrimental to my career and future employment.
( though of course I know if I'd already resigned I could talk...morally I wouldn't because their is always another side to the detail).

"No one young is going to marry into the RF for love only."

@Ihatefish nearly 40 is young? Patronising

@SidneyPlace

If we remove who they are and pretend they are Mr and Mrs Joe Public.

If this is about 'family', which of us would go on air and be interviewed about our family & private life? My family would be devastated at the breach of confidentiality and of course it would be detrimental to our relationship. My family wouldn't want or have the chance to give their view - 'two sides' and all that.

If this is about 'work', (as working Royals) , which of you would go on air and talk about their employer. I work in education (public sector, LA). There is loads I would love to share in an interview, but it would breach 'confidentiality' and I would be sacked. It would be detrimental to my career and future employment.
( though of course I know if I'd already resigned I could talk...morally I wouldn't because their is always another side to the detail).

If that employer was in the public eye as much as the royal family is I would at least make a public statement.

However, I feel the interview is crass. Especially given the current circumstances.

@Medievalist

And does no one remember the treatment Camilla received when she and Charles publicly announced their relationship?

And she deserved every single bit if it.

They BOTH deserved it if it was anybody else's business but, where was the vitriol for Charles? Answer: nowhere.

The sooner we no longer have a royal family, the sooner the rampant frothers will explode their little pointless selves into oblivion and we'll no longer have to put up with them either.

If this is about 'family', which of us would go on air and be interviewed about our family & private life? My family would be devastated at the breach of confidentiality and of course it would be detrimental to our relationship. My family wouldn't want or have the chance to give their view - 'two sides' and all that.

What about the breaches of confidentiality that came from the palace in terms of the 'leaks'.

Meghan is nicknamed duchess difficult, Me-gain and Harry nicknamed the Hostage. These all came from courtiers. They sign NDAs so obviously these 'leaks' were sanctioned by the royal family.

I think the sick bag is actually for when we listen to and read the British media commentators and 'opinions' after the interview.

However, let's not place William in an ivory tower. Like his brother, he's a marked man, have we forgotten the supposed affair with Rose Hanbury that was again covered up by the royal press office?
Have not forgotten and it's funny how the negative stories about H&M increased at the same time 🤔

"Edward walked because he didn't want to conform anymore, he wanted to be a man not a royal."

I thought that he wanted to be King with Wallis as his Queen.

Didn't he spend his life griping about her not having HRH?

And he never gave his up!

@oakleaffy, god that really should put anyone’s problems into perspective! Horrible.

Meghan saying ''It is almost unsurvivable''...What an utter insult to all those who really suffer.

Tell that to Caroline Flack. Oh, wait you can't! Because her treatment was unsurvivable. How disgusting to post that video as some kind of gotcha.

@oakleaffy

So that's like saying people in emotionally abusive relationships should think themselves lucky because others are murdered by their partners?

You can't draw comparison to two completely different scenarios at two completely different points of history.

Again, should racism nowadays be tolerated because it's nowhere near as bad as slavery was?

Also her son is not stupid and reckless, he is a known associate of a pedophile and very possibly a child rapist who has been protected by said royal family. Don't feel sorry for the royal family, feel sorry for Andrew's victims.
👏👏👏👏 Thank You, the fact that people are so easily manipulated that they can't see that most of this is to distract from the Prince who had to visit a paedophile personally so say they couldn't be friends anymore ......🤬

I think the sick bag is actually for when we listen to and read the British media commentators and 'opinions' after the interview

If it's Penny Junor, Ingrid Seward or that windbag Nicholas Witchell, I'll need a bigger bag!

Oh hang on... Ingrid Seward is one of the 3 who was offered money to give her opinion on the Oprah interview before it was even aired, whilst pretending she had seen it, and was running Meghan down. Surprise surprise

@HmmmmmmInteresting

I would not waste too much energy arguing with a 'black' person who does not see racism. There is no such thing.

and what on earth is not living a black life?

As for not complaining or explaining about your lot because you are rich and there are NHS, starving, wars etc. Well, in that case no one has any right to complain about anything then, except if they are living in a cardboard box in a war torn county. Someone is always better off than someone else. We all have our problems.

@Roussette

I think the sick bag is actually for when we listen to and read the British media commentators and 'opinions' after the interview

If it's Penny Junor, Ingrid Seward or that windbag Nicholas Witchell, I'll need a bigger bag!

Oh hang on... Ingrid Seward is one of the 3 who was offered money to give her opinion on the Oprah interview before it was even aired, whilst pretending she had seen it, and was running Meghan down. Surprise surprise

That's right. This lady: youtu.be/T_j35t3GCsk

[quote Mummy195]@HmmmmmmInteresting

I would not waste too much energy arguing with a 'black' person who does not see racism. There is no such thing.

and what on earth is not living a black life?

As for not complaining or explaining about your lot because you are rich and there are NHS, starving, wars etc. Well, in that case no one has any right to complain about anything then, except if they are living in a cardboard box in a war torn county. Someone is always better off than someone else. We all have our problems.[/quote]
You are correct.

@diddl

"Edward walked because he didn't want to conform anymore, he wanted to be a man not a royal."

I thought that he wanted to be King with Wallis as his Queen.

Didn't he spend his life griping about her not having HRH?

And he never gave his up!

Yes but he chose marriage over ruling the country.

To give up Kingship is quite the marital compromise.

He kept HRH because it was his birthright. She should, in practice, have been allowed to be Queen but due to an archaic, sexist religious clause you could not be considered royal if you are a divorced female. To my belief, Meghan was the first to change that?

Is this like Jeremy Kyle for the upper class?

She should, in practice, have been allowed to be Queen but due to an archaic, sexist religious clause you could not be considered royal if you are a divorced female. To my belief, Meghan was the first to change that?

No, Camilla.

She should, in practice, have been allowed to be Queen but due to an archaic, sexist religious clause you could not be considered royal if you are a divorced female. To my belief, Meghan was the first to change that?

No, I think you'll find that was Camilla

@JohnMiddleNameRedactedSwanson

She should, in practice, have been allowed to be Queen but due to an archaic, sexist religious clause you could not be considered royal if you are a divorced female. To my belief, Meghan was the first to change that?

No, Camilla.

You're very right, how stupid of me.

*Camilla was the first to change that.

[quote Mummy195]@HmmmmmmInteresting

I would not waste too much energy arguing with a 'black' person who does not see racism. There is no such thing.

and what on earth is not living a black life?

As for not complaining or explaining about your lot because you are rich and there are NHS, starving, wars etc. Well, in that case no one has any right to complain about anything then, except if they are living in a cardboard box in a war torn county. Someone is always better off than someone else. We all have our problems.[/quote]
It's not so much that they complain but that they don't seem to show much awareness of how privileged they are (and the royal family are privileged in a way that is pretty incomprehensible and goes beyond just wealth imo).

Plus the timing of their complaints is a bit strange. On tour in Africa representing the Queen, highlighting charitable projects and witnessing poverty and then deciding this is the best time to complain about how hard a time they're having...I think that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

[quote LH1987]@oakleaffy, god that really should put anyone’s problems into perspective! Horrible.[/quote]
@LH1987

I couldn't believe the stuff people in the Death Camps endured.
These dear little boys, Emanuel, 2, and Avram, 5 below were murdered in the 1944 ''Children's Action''.

It really does make Meghan and Harry's whines look very self obsessed.