Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

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

999 replies

selectabo · 08/03/2021 22:52

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

OP posts:
PicsInRed · 09/03/2021 10:32

Part of me thinking she's like a black widow spider

Fuck me, that's a new one. Hmm

oakleaffy · 09/03/2021 10:32

@LoveYourUsername

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.

Exactly so. They so easily could have had just a very private wedding and saved the Taxpayer millions.
Bibidy · 09/03/2021 10:32

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.

This is it exactly.

People forget that it was Harry and Meghan who weren't happy with the income they were being provided for their royal work. THEY wanted to make deals of their own, which obviously is not permitted for senior members of the royal family.

So the choice was essentially keep the jobs you have now and accept the lower income, or give the jobs up and do your own thing for more money.

The royals were never just going to continue paying out to them when they were no longer going to carry out any formal duties.

Claudia84 · 09/03/2021 10:32

@tisonlymeagain

“There was more to it than that. They wanted to pursue commercial deals which wasn't going to be supported. “

You mean like they didn’t support Prince Edward and his production company?

TrustTheGeneGenie · 09/03/2021 10:34

They so easily could have had just a very private wedding and saved the Taxpayer millions

I very much doubt that would have been allowed.

allthingsred · 09/03/2021 10:34

I think they believe what they said. Problem is they are so entitled lots of things I can't feel sorry for because i just don't get it.
My family cut me off so I have to live off my inheritance...your 36 & a millionaire even if those millions just came from mum. Plus you've left your job.. Yes you stop getting paid.
My Son wasn't given a title?...neither have his cousins (2nd cousins) it's not a problem for peter, zara, Eugenie etc. H knows the score with that. & it was put in to cause uproar
The whole baby skin colour.. I'm in a mixed relationship before our children were born we talked about who they would look like. (Same with my niece/nephews who are mixed) my 1st 2 dc 1 is dark like me my 2nd is blonde like dad having a 3rd that conversation happened more. I wouldn't say that is racist. It shouldn't have been bought up without the full story it's so inflammatory.
MM mh? I can't understand why when H & W Have both been open about therapy they would have refused her support. I think I there is more to that story.

Same4Walls · 09/03/2021 10:35

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.

Yes that's what normally happens because there is the assumption that those junior royals will then take the place of the senior royals. They will then do the public engagements and continue the work done by those who are gone. It's not unfeasible to think Archie's children will have more normal jobs and be no different from any other person.

I find it very odd anyone would really think that the British public should fund security indefinitely for all of Harry's future generations deapite them living in America and contributing nothing to the family business?

TrustTheGeneGenie · 09/03/2021 10:36

@Same4Walls

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.

Yes that's what normally happens because there is the assumption that those junior royals will then take the place of the senior royals. They will then do the public engagements and continue the work done by those who are gone. It's not unfeasible to think Archie's children will have more normal jobs and be no different from any other person.

I find it very odd anyone would really think that the British public should fund security indefinitely for all of Harry's future generations deapite them living in America and contributing nothing to the family business?

For as long as they're indentifiabke and at risk they should have security. If Archies children are 100 "normal" then fine, no they likely don't need it.

I'd rather support this family than someone who abuses children. Apparently that's okay though!

Bibidy · 09/03/2021 10:37

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.

Yes, I agree with this.

Everything seemed to happen very quickly for them and I'm not surprised Meghan struggled to adjust to this new life as part of an institution with such strict protocol and limitations on your life.

I mean, when you think they haven't even been married for 3 years yet and all this has already happened....they didn't really give it long at all for things to settle and for Meghan to adjust to this new role. It feels a bit like things didn't work out immediately so they threw their hands up and ran. And tbh Harry is more to blame for this as he's lived his whole life in the royal family and should have helped Meghan more to understand what her life would be if they did marry.

SunnyChange · 09/03/2021 10:37

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.

If they had Tom, Dick and Harry from the Royal Family then she was entitled to her friends and family there for herself too, wasn't she? Or should she have faced that wedding without people she knew and loved? It's a royal wedding, they are big, televised spectacles for the public where every move is watched. Imagine what the public would have said if it was a private wedding!

OldRailer · 09/03/2021 10:39

My bet is the majority of the public would back a cheap wedding!

MimiDaisy11 · 09/03/2021 10:39

@SunnyChange

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?
Isn't the difference that they asked or said they were going step back whereas Andrew was instructed to step back. So he wasn't "defying" the palace like they were. He's also staying out of the media as much as he can, whereas H&M are giving interviews, doing tv deals etc, so there's going to be more coverage. Plus Andrew hasn't said anything negative about the royal family. The bully allegations against Meghan were also covered up by the palace at the time, but obviously, now she's an outsider and attacking them they're using it. (Doesn't look good on them that they only take staff seriously if it's to their benefit).

Don't get me wrong there should be more pressure on Andrew to cooperate with American authorities etc.

stablefeet · 09/03/2021 10:40

Credibility - lied about getting married before the official ceremony. Deliberately intended to mislead with the comment about Archie's skin colour being linked to him not being an HRH. (They knew full well he hadn't been entitled to that since 2012). Went to a member of the royal household asking for help with suicidal thoughts and was "denied" help - unlikely isn't it? Particularly as her husband was already being supported by counselling and let's face it as an American she'd be much more accustomed to counselling being a part of life and - she had plenty of money to pay for it.
And yet - people are believing every word uttered in that interview. Has the world gone mad? Putting so much weight on one word uttered by Harry - concern - when we know that the same interview includes much that was intended to mislead and sensationalise.

I just wish they had either given pure and unembellished truth or preferably dealt with this in a much less destructive and vindictive manner. Yes, damaged souls but pretty nasty with it. And that's coming from me - who thinks the royal family has had it's day and should end when the queen goes.

Same4Walls · 09/03/2021 10:40

For as long as they're indentifiabke and at risk they should have security. If Archies children are 100 "normal" then fine, no they likely don't need it.

But you've said yourself they won't ever be 100% normal as they will always be descended from Harry, a prince. You could have a situation where in 3 or 4 generations time someone was still claiming they needed protection due to their great great great ancestors circumstance of birth. Even if those future generations lived perfectly ordinary but obviously lavish lives we would be still expected to fund them. I mean realistically no one is ever going to outright say stop funding my security are they.

Mariposa123 · 09/03/2021 10:40

I believe it’s their truth. Similar to how a child being told off at school would have a different truth to the teacher dealing with them (‘Miss is picking on me!’); it’s their version of events that is just one side of the story.

GoLightlyontheEarth · 09/03/2021 10:40

@TrustTheGeneGenie

They so easily could have had just a very private wedding and saved the Taxpayer millions

I very much doubt that would have been allowed.

They could have had a small quiet wedding like Charles and Camilla.
Bibidy · 09/03/2021 10:41

For as long as they're indentifiabke and at risk they should have security. If Archies children are 100 "normal" then fine, no they likely don't need it.

But they can pay for security themselves?? Harry inherited from Diana and also from the Queen Mother, and who knows who else - he is a multi-millionaire in his own right.

Princess Beatrice and Eugenie don't have taxpayer funded security either. It's all just part of the plan to slim down to the core isn't it? It's just Harry has always been such a high profile member of the family that it seems more of a shock when it's happened to him.

GoLightlyontheEarth · 09/03/2021 10:41

Zara’s wedding was dignified and private as was Princess Anne’s second marriage.

McEwan · 09/03/2021 10:41

If they had Tom, Dick and Harry from the Royal Family then she was entitled to her friends and family there for herself too, wasn't she? Or should she have faced that wedding without people she knew and loved? It's a royal wedding, they are big, televised spectacles for the public where every move is watched. Imagine what the public would have said if it was a private wedding!

What some people find odd is that (at least in the case of Oprah) they were people she didn't know.

Which then raises the question why she seemed to have so few friends to attend her wedding.

MimiDaisy11 · 09/03/2021 10:42

On the issue of security and the royal family, it's often done for status rather than based on need. Many lower royals that no one has heard of (Princess Alexandra, anyone?) and who are under no threat have security but higher royals like Princess Anne don't.

tisonlymeagain · 09/03/2021 10:42

Princess Beatrice also had a quiet wedding, lockdown obviously, but it didn't need to be, she could have waited for the pomp and circumstance.

TrustTheGeneGenie · 09/03/2021 10:43

@OldRailer

My bet is the majority of the public would back a cheap wedding!
I doubt that somehow.
TrustTheGeneGenie · 09/03/2021 10:44

@GoLightlyontheEarth

Zara’s wedding was dignified and private as was Princess Anne’s second marriage.
I don't think either of those are comparable really. Or Charles and Camilla wedding. Let's face it they didn't want that to be a public spectacle.
ShirleyPhallus · 09/03/2021 10:44

@VanillaIce

I didn’t buy her account of feeling suicidal. I have known a person to be actually suicidal, where they cannot be left alone. They don’t tell you they cannot be left alone. They don’t have the comprehension at that point. They are not usually aware enough of their situation to be able to so eloquently describe how they’re feeling. They’re certainly not usually able to explore so many avenues for support without someone else handholding them through it. I was surprised to hear Meghan felt so suicidal that she went to HR (what even is that in terms of the royals and why would she be doing that, HR is surely for staff not actual members of the family), consulted with Diana’s friends - again, she was very new in the scene but she’d managed to make a close confidante out of one of Diana’s old friends? She went to senior members of the family to explain her distress? This seems so atypical of my experience of someone feeling suicidal. And her husband didn’t bother doing any of these things?

A woman planning suicide whilst pregnant is such a serious and terrifying thing, that would take you a long time to recover. Yet barely two years later Meghan is full recovered, living a fairy tale (her own words) and has so much vocabulary to eloquently describe her experience, likening herself on two occasions to fairytale princesses. (Rapunzel and The Little Mermaid).

I found the whole thing so rehearsed and false and performed. Tailored to a gullible, fawning American public.

I got the feeling she’d been rehearsing her answers in the bathroom mirror since 2017.

Don’t get me started on her weird interjections about Private Secretaries being CEOs. WTF? And Christmas parties for tabloids in exchange for better press. And her refusal to use titles for any members of the family except the Queen but she was clearly royally fucked if at her own child not having one. The grandeur doesn’t mean much to me... says Meghan, living authentically, from her £10m house in California.

What an absolutely revolting thing to say. Who are you to say how people who have suicidal thoughts behave?

There are PLENTY of people who sadly commit suicide and friends and family say they had no idea they even felt that way.

tisonlymeagain · 09/03/2021 10:44

@Bibidy

For as long as they're indentifiabke and at risk they should have security. If Archies children are 100 "normal" then fine, no they likely don't need it.

But they can pay for security themselves?? Harry inherited from Diana and also from the Queen Mother, and who knows who else - he is a multi-millionaire in his own right.

Princess Beatrice and Eugenie don't have taxpayer funded security either. It's all just part of the plan to slim down to the core isn't it? It's just Harry has always been such a high profile member of the family that it seems more of a shock when it's happened to him.

And when the Cambridge children have their own children Harry will be so far down the pecking order.