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

[selectabo]

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

Cry me a river - or indeed just stop whinging and live off the many millions you have already and if you do believe in service - keep quiet and get on with it. There just may be a precedent

@Same4Walls

No, but that's not the same as being born into the royal family ffs.

Well of course it isn't. For starters my family would be footing the bill foelr these perks not expecting the taxpayers to do so whilst I swanned off contributed nothing to the company and lived a life of luxery on their behalf.

Do yoi genuinely think he should not be expected to foot his own security bill and him and his children and then their children should be funded by the public purse. If so at what point do you stop funding the security?

No I think he should be treated like the rest of them are. He was born into it. He didn't choose it. They support a child abuser ffs.

Nobody is denying them security, but they wanted financial independence so they should foot that bill themselves. They can't expect to have the financial freedom to earn money from huge commercial relationships, pocket all that cash, and then merrily spend other people's money on their security bill because they CHOSE to move to the other side of the world. It's unreasonable and unsustainable. They're hardly on their knees.

There are 3 sides to every story

Megan and Harry
The rest of the family
The real truth which may never be told

I do on the most part, I'm not sure about the wedding stuff unless it was a blessing, although they might refer to it as getting married as that was just for them and maybe it felt like their real marriage began then. That's the only thing it could be but then again could just be a pure lie, an odd one because clearly it would have been found out easily.

I think the not knowing how things work might have come from her wanting to be headstrong and do things herself so whoever was meant to help her has probably gone "OK, we'll leave you to it then" and she was literally left to do it herself but Harry needs to take responsibility for that. Nothing can prepare anyone for the absolute vitriol she has endured by the media (and comments by the UK public on SM and forums like this). She HAS been treated differently to Kate and that is evidenced by comparing articles of her doing the same things and the headlines being very, very different. If it's not racism, there is definitely some reason but whatever it is, the bullying by the press is not acceptable. For anyone who says she knows what she got into, why is it ok for the media to do that to anyone? I'm sure she'd have been used to some of it, but that extent was unwarranted. It's funny, it's those that have attacked her that are coming out saying it's all lies to save their skin for the years of negative headlines they've written against her, they're virtually foaming at the mouth. Piers Morgan is still spewing hate because he no longer has a direct line to her.

I definitely believe a certain senior royal in the family did say something racist about their future children's skin colour, from the interview it wasn't just the once either. Harry said the first time was when he was dating Meghan so I assume it was that it was either a very distasteful joke (not acceptable) or they were completely aghast and "concerned" as they said which was echoed again when Meghan was pregnant.

Archie would have been entitled to title of Prince when Charles were King but he changed it so he wouldn't be entitled to use it as he wanted a "slimmed down" monarchy. They didn't say it was definitely because of his race but wondered if it was. I'm wondering if the comments and the change of rules regarding using the prince title are connected to one person because I could see how that conclusion would be drawn.

At the same time, whilst I like Meghan, I think she came across very sacchrine and that did not translate well for those that already dislike her. I don't think she's fake, I have a friend who comes across the same way as Meghan and it's the world view of wanting everything to be good and love and hearts, etc. The UK public are generally not people who go for that! I remember seeing an interview with Kelly Osbourne who noted the difference between Americans and the British in that she loved how you could walk down the street in the UK and someone could shout "oi you pink haired fuck" (something along those lines anyway) and that in the US, people are a bit more peppy.

I do believe the Archbishop of Canterbury thing. That could be easily checked and even if it wasn't entirely legal and merely "spiritual" then if it made them happy... so what.

I agree with pp that all this talk about smiling and waving and it's just a job... is insulting to all the schmucks who've ever turned out to see them, or met them at dull events etc etc. Yes, it's tacitly understood that it's often probably not the best day out ever for a royal, but to articulate it? Rude and flying in the face of the "duty" they repeatedly mention.

I think top and bottom of the whole debacle is the realisation that being a royal comes with doing a lot of very dreary work: opening community centres in Wigan on a rainy Thursday. The disconnect with the palace came when M was being made to slot into the "dull and dutiful" role and it wasn't a role she wished to play.

@liverpool1981

There is more to this that meets the eye. I don't think Harry is charles son. Why would they cut him off financially??

@liverpool1981 bar the colour of hair, Harry is Charles’ spitting image in younger years.

When he was cut off financially it was at the point in which they had explicitly asked to step back as a senior royal - Ie have a similar role that other family members have. They didn’t say they wanted to leave. And they suggested living somewhere else in the commonwealth.
They were cut off before the royal family had made the decision that they weren’t going to allow them to do that.

But no worries about the wedding they did not want : they duped everyone who was watching as the real wedding was three days earlier.

That's an odd line to take imo. And believe me I have some sympathies as my wedding day was too big for me , looking back I might have done it differently.

No I think he should be treated like the rest of them are. He was born into it.

But like I said surely if you think he needs publicly funded security and his children do would you then have no problem with Archie's children having security funded by the public as it's not their fault their grandparent is a Prince. What about their children? Where do you draw the line?

But Harry and Meghan DID have the conversation, he knew she was suicidal when they went out to that public event that she sat crying at. Royal or not, if my spouse told me they were feeling suicidal I would not be dragging them out to a public event. Just pull out, feign sickness, whatever. Get her out of there and somewhere she feels safe and comfortable. He's as culpable as anyone else.

It was said in a follow up conversation sitting in a chicken coop and then it cut off back to the proper interview. I took it to mean they just wanted something for themselves so had a ceremony just the two of them. She’s American, you can get married by an Elvis impersonator there. I don’t think she meant it how you’re taking it.

So she was lying when she said she was properly married three days before hand?

@Belladonna12

If there was any doubt over Harry's paternity he will have been DNA tested at birth. It's madness to think otherwise.

I'm not sure that DNA testing for parentage was widely used when he was born. If it was, maybe they did test! Do you think they would publicise the results?

Harry was bullied at school over his alleged paternity. DNA tests are doable at any age, and surely he'd have had one to put his mind at rest. He is the spit of Charles in the eyes and nose, William has the more Spencer facial structure.

@Belladonna12

If there was any doubt over Harry's paternity he will have been DNA tested at birth. It's madness to think otherwise.

I'm not sure that DNA testing for parentage was widely used when he was born. If it was, maybe they did test! Do you think they would publicise the results?

I'm sure that the royal family could have paid, even back then, to find out whether Harry was Charles's child. The science would have been around, even if not widely used.

And yeah! I think that, given the state of Charles and Diana's relationship even shortly after Harry was born, I think that he would have used it against her to exonerate himself from fault and end the marriage.

I genuinely think during the years when Diana was almost bringing the whole institution down that this information would 100% have been 'leaked'.

Considering Oprah went to their massive wedding I’m surprised she didn’t have something to say about that.

Don’t think it was the palace who wanted Clooneys, cast of Suits or Oprah parading through Windsor. Such bollocks an a slap in the face to the people who paid for it and would have enjoyed the sunny day just as much without the televised spectacle.

I do believe the Archbishop of Canterbury thing. That could be easily checked and even if it wasn't entirely legal and merely "spiritual" then if it made them happy... so what.

You cannot be legally married in the UK without witnesses (because they are there to say there may be impediments to the union.) So no, it wasn't a wedding. It was a rehearsal.

@Claudia84

When he was cut off financially it was at the point in which they had explicitly asked to step back as a senior royal - Ie have a similar role that other family members have. They didn’t say they wanted to leave. And they suggested living somewhere else in the commonwealth. They were cut off before the royal family had made the decision that they weren’t going to allow them to do that.

There was more to it than that. They wanted to pursue commercial deals which wasn't going to be supported. So they had to make a choice and I believe that's what it was, rather than being cut off. They wanted to retain the glory but be able to make a quick buck. When they were told that wasn't possible, they flounced.

I can't help but think none of this would have happened if they had followed Williams advice and waited a little longer to get married. If Royal life did not suit them I'm sure that something perhaps Africa based or in formal posts where they would have had some space could;have been organised and they could have made a gentle transition into a more rewarding second son situation.
I believed what they said about their feelings, they are two deeply damaged individuals who have thrown their lot in together and see everyone else as wrong.What they said about Archie not being a Prince because of his ethnicity was simply legally wrong. The nonsense about being married 3 days before is wrong. That Harry expected security paid for by either his father or the British Government when he is way down the line of succession and was living abroad is incomprehensible - he was loaded with inheritance money too. Meghan touched her nose at various points in the interview, which any police office will tell you is a sign of untruth, but for the most of it it seems to be misguided belief in being hard done by yet again. Harry has certainly burned bridges with his father, and that is so so sad, he could have talked about his perception of his financial situation without being quite so vitriolic and personal.

And I forgot to point out, someone was protected from all those Epstein allegations and the family still would not break in their public support of them. Harry and Meghan asked to step back, they were basically told it's all or nothing. Why the harshness with H&M when that other person in question has stepped back and it was agreed to?

But then what would have happened? Disown him after all the hoo-hah in the press and public??

Yeah I genuinely think Charles would have disowned Harry if he had found out he wasn't his son.

Firstly, his marriage to Diana was miserable so he would have probably loved to use it as a get out of jail free card rather than the blame coming down on him due to his affair with Camilla.

And secondly, it would be way too dangerous to have someone outside the bloodline to be that close to the throne. There is no way it would ever have been allowed. Up until Prince George was born Harry was 3rd in line!

Harry seemed to divert himself by suddenly becoming very interested in the chickens when she said about having 'married' three days earlier ... sure he knew they'd be crucified for that.

Various things in there that I find beyond credible. I don't believe for a minute that Harry would have been her sole source for advice on protocol. I have no doubt things were spelled out to both of them very clearly about what could be expected from the Press (which is obviously disgusting treatment, no question).

I wonder if this is the context of the discussion about Archie's skin colour too - asking Harry was he really prepared for the Press treatment if he did have a child that was obviously mixed race? (Again, disgusting treatment.)

I don't believe she sat in the Royal Box at the Albert Hall 'weeping' every time the lights were down, there would have been endless pictures and discussion of her face being a mess.

The Kate thing was very manipulative. I can just imagine the AIBU on here, when a mother who actually has experience of children and has recently given birth doesn't want her sister-in-law-to-be to put brand new shoes without socks or tights on her daughter/other children, because she knows damn well that she'll get a day of whingeing when the poor child has blisters.

I am sure that at every turn they were being advised - they just thought they knew better and that their 'star quality' would win through, and raise them in the ranks.

In general, I thought Meghan presented better than Harry, who came across as spectacularly thick and entitled to be honest - and I've always liked him before, loved the James Corden stuff.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the perpetual character assassination of Meghan Markle.

A woman who went on record as saying she was suicidal.

A woman who is pregnant, having previously suffered a miscarriage.

She screwed up at times, like the toe-curlingly embarrassing grandiosity displayed at Windsor. That her in-laws are a bunch of racists comes as NO surprise (not excluding her husband, who seems to have learned better but whose track record isn't one to be proud of). With the grandfather who makes oh, so, amusing 'gaffes' about ethnic minorities still chucking spears about, or a granny's cousin who turns up to an event at which a bi-racial family member will be present, wearing a racist brooch. Suppose she thought she was being clever.

It's justifiable Markle should feel she's been thrown to the dogs to protect the reputation of other family members. That's been clear for aeons. I don't care if there's some blame on both sides, as in these situations there invariably is. This woman has been excoriated from every conceivable angle.

It needs to stop.

@Same4Walls

No I think he should be treated like the rest of them are. He was born into it.

But like I said surely if you think he needs publicly funded security and his children do would you then have no problem with Archie's children having security funded by the public as it's not their fault their grandparent is a Prince. What about their children? Where do you draw the line?

Well no I wouldn't, by then the older members would be dead and therefore there is money "spare" that's what usually happens isn't it. It just moved with the generations, obviously.

Sorry - grandiosity displayed at WIMBLEDON.

Also, what about the SussexRoyal thing? That was all prepared (badly!) well in advance of any announcement.

The Oprah thing wasn't an interview so much as a reverential audience, and for people to take it totally at face value is wrong. As so many others have said, there are always two sides to every story (at least).