What were Harry and Meghan hoping to achieve?

[HumousWhereTheHeartIs]

This is an honest question not a chance to bash anyone. I'm curious about why Harry and Meghan would do this and what the consequences could be. They must have realised the massive fall-out this would cause. This could be the end of Harry's relationship with his family. But for what? Sympathy? Increased profiles? Honesty?

www.politifact.com/article/2021/mar/09/why-archie-not-prince-fact-checking-prince-protoco/

And I think they didn’t take the title because it doesn’t come with security? In America, a lot of us refuse to take jobs if it doesn’t have benefits such as health insurance. Especially if these job don’t give us privacy

“Of course it wasn't a true wedding, but a mere rehearsal”

How do you know it wasn’t done with bishop Michael Curry. American have different idea what it take to be married.

@Sprining

“Ordinarily they should have sorted out their issues privately. If William (my money's on William) had commented on the skin tone of any future kids they would have, he should just have pointed out there and then that he wasn't standing for that kind of comment”

So no biggie that the future king of UK is racist then. Just a private matter, eh?

I think this post highlights the issue, people are clearly jumping to that whomever said it is racist and that it was either Charles or William.

Even though both Harry and Meghan gave different accounts of when it was said and how often, and the palace are saying “recollections vary” . No one knows, not one of us, know what was Said, when it was said, or even who said it, the person who said it is in a very difficult situation in terms of rebuttal.

So this post highlights what’s wrong with this sort of vague allegation, people are reading into it information they don’t have, and making assumptions that could be wrong.

Over time, the second son of the heir to the throne becomes less prominent, but still important. It is however a supporting rather than a major role. Think about the profile of Anne in particular (Andrew has profile for the wrong reasons). Harry and Megan either do not get this, or get it and do not like it. Hence their growing frustration and the very strong media push which builds their brand and gives them more US prominence in particular. Airing any family concerns to the US media will not in any way help solve them, but does give them more control having hit out first and knowing that Charles and The Queen are hardly likely to do Oprah.

Presumably they had a rehearsal with all the wedding party there as most people do. Which wouldn’t have had just them and the Archbishop. I don’t understand it at all.

Meg is a covert Narcissist and Harry is one of her many flying monkeys. There's loads of evidence of her Narcissism but the biggest indicator is they way she likes to change protocols to suit her ego. Rejecting H's engagement ring and having it altered. That and what she thinks is appropriate like writing life affirming messages on bananas for street sex workers in Bristol. I can't remember exactly what one girl said but I do remember that she wasn't impressed. I'd rather be slapped than patronised. "You are loved" am I? Is it you who loves me, will you help me, set up a safe haven for the likes of me? "Oh, I see, what I get is a banana and platitudes" I think I know where that banana can go!

@Blueberries0112

“Of course it wasn't a true wedding, but a mere rehearsal”

How do you know it wasn’t done with bishop Michael Curry. American have different idea what it take to be married.

No they don’t, in the USA you also need a marriage licence a legal document. However I get Meghan didn’t understand British customs but in both the Uk and the USA a legal document is required. She will not have been confused on that score. As she was previously married and divorced.

Blueberries she said they were married by the Archbishop of Canterbury 3 days before the wedding.

I know that a spokesman has since said it wasn't a wedding but anyone watching that interview in future won't know that.

And I seem to remember she was confirmed into the Church of England by the Archbishop Of Canterbury before their marriage. So she can't argue she doesn't know what getting married is or means.

@TonyGates

I've been very unimpressed by the failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury to comment.

Her comment about the wedding was sticking her finger up to the British people. Not nice at all.

Agree. She has undermined the RF and CofE. That comment about "no-one knew that" was delivered in such a contemptuous tone of voice. Meghan fights dirty. It's a bit Gossip Girl isn't it?

@Blueberries0112

“Of course it wasn't a true wedding, but a mere rehearsal”

How do you know it wasn’t done with bishop Michael Curry. American have different idea what it take to be married.

In UK one needs two Witnesses and an open place where anyone who knows of a '' Legal Impediment'' to the potential marriage can step up and say so.

It is not possible to be legally married in England without witnesses present.

What I haven't been able to understand is whether Meghan is right to correlate Archie's lack of the title of 'Prince' with his lack of protection. Isn't this a false equivalence? Surely there's no causation between his lack of title and his protection status -- Beatrice and Eugenie, despite being princesses, don't have protection funded by the RF, as far as I'm aware, and are similar now to Harry and Meghan as royals who make their own income. Not to mention the issue of the staggering amounts it would cost to provide round the clock protection to people living permanently on another continent.

The whole 'he's not being made a Prince because he's mixed-race and therefore he doesn't get protection' sounds like a faulty chain of logic to me, and in fact undermines the very real surreptitious racist sneering I'm sure MM experienced.

(Though obviously one wanted Oprah to ask, as any fully-briefed interviewer would surely want to, how Meghan feels about the fact that her own husband, while in the army, was severely reprimanded for calling one of his unit, on video 'our little P*ki friend' and on another occasion saying that another looked like a 'raghead'. Not to mention attending (leaving aside the WW2 Nazi outfit) at least one 'Natives and Colonials' party -- I say 'at least one', because apparently William also had this theme for his 21st, to which he wore a grass skirt. Apparently it wasn't unusual for the Yah set, and allows for totes hilair puttings of feathers in hair/black leotards and leopardskins etc.)

Has the Archbishop of Canterbury said anything?

Meghan because she wants to be the successor to Oprah when her time is up.

Harry because he is protecting himself from his wife.

I think the issue is that without the title Prince, Archie would not get protection. The reason he would not get that title is because he is not a direct descendant along the line of succession currently. If Charles becomes king then Archie would b in the direct line of succession and become a Prince.

You have to consider their fears about the lack of protection in the context of the constant racial abuse online and in the papers. There was a death threat made against Harry and he was called a race traitor, those responsible were prosecuted.

They were going to be working royals and bound by all of the rules pertaining to this, but Meghan and Archie would not get protection unless on engagements. Harry would get round the clock protection as he is a Prince. There were suggestions according to the interview that Meghan work to pay for her protection, but she understandably may not have felt safe to do so, with constant paparazzi trailing her and her family and then being pregnant.

I know the protocol was to only provide security for titled royal family members, but considering the extent of the vitriol and abuse levelled at Meghan I can understand why they would feel that the institution should have protected them more.

@Sprining

“Ordinarily they should have sorted out their issues privately. If William (my money's on William) had commented on the skin tone of any future kids they would have, he should just have pointed out there and then that he wasn't standing for that kind of comment”

So no biggie that the future king of UK is racist then. Just a private matter, eh?

This is the danger of giving no context. We only know it was before they married. It is not necessarily racist to comment on how a future baby will look. They inferred that the lack of title/security was to do with that comment, which would clearly be racist, but that was a much later conversation and Meghan and Oprah made that very dubious connection - it certainly sounded unlikely that the two were linked from the way Harry spoke about it. I think it's a real stretch (although not impossible) to say it means whoever said it is racist, without appropriate context.

I also don’t understand why she said they were married three days before hand and that “no one knew that” .

She will have known full well, as a divorcee, that she didn’t get married three days before hand. She will have known she needed witnesses and for them both to habe signed the licence.

I understand that saying we had a private exchange of vows three days before hand isnt as news worthy, but she will not have been confused in her head on what occured.

I suspect the arch bishop is saying nothing because he wants to stay out of it. I mean what help is him saying “ yeah it was a planned rehearsal but rhey used their own vows”

Harry just sat ther playing with the chickens, he’d also have known full well they weren’t married three days before hand.

@DeepThinkingGirl

I wonder what will happen for Archie and the new baby in years to come. They might feel very sad not to have contact with their grandfather, cousins and other relations in the future.

I think they might feel sadder if they feel pushed away for their mixed heritage 😒. It’s about damage limitation, no one is claiming this is ideal for anyone

But there's zero evidence that they would be 'pushed' away. There was a really lovely official photo when Archie was born, with both GMs in - no sign there of any attempt to push them out?

@Silurian

What I haven't been able to understand is whether Meghan is right to correlate Archie's lack of the title of 'Prince' with his lack of protection. Isn't this a false equivalence? Surely there's no causation between his lack of title and his protection status -- Beatrice and Eugenie, despite being princesses, don't have protection funded by the RF, as far as I'm aware, and are similar now to Harry and Meghan as royals who make their own income. Not to mention the issue of the staggering amounts it would cost to provide round the clock protection to people living permanently on another continent.

The whole 'he's not being made a Prince because he's mixed-race and therefore he doesn't get protection' sounds like a faulty chain of logic to me, and in fact undermines the very real surreptitious racist sneering I'm sure MM experienced.

(Though obviously one wanted Oprah to ask, as any fully-briefed interviewer would surely want to, how Meghan feels about the fact that her own husband, while in the army, was severely reprimanded for calling one of his unit, on video 'our little P*ki friend' and on another occasion saying that another looked like a 'raghead'. Not to mention attending (leaving aside the WW2 Nazi outfit) at least one 'Natives and Colonials' party -- I say 'at least one', because apparently William also had this theme for his 21st, to which he wore a grass skirt. Apparently it wasn't unusual for the Yah set, and allows for totes hilair puttings of feathers in hair/black leotards and leopardskins etc.)

Very well said Silurian.

I've only seen clips, two hours of whingeing would be very boring. Winfrey needed another take of the reaction to the racist comment, she fluffed it.

The comment above about why it is ok for Harry to have lots of incidents of racism but not everyone else is entirely true. 'im not a racist because I have a mixed race wife' has also been used by anti Semites 'oh, but I have Jewish friends' . Answer that, Meghan?

@Chocaholic9

I think they did it because they feel wronged by the press and the royal family, and they want to break free and live life on their terms. They're taking back their power. As someone who comes from a dysfunctional family, I can understand it.

She expected that the country and the institution would change overnight to fit her very narrow agenda and when she realised it wouldn't she stamped her feet. Very little of what she apparently said is validated. It's amazing how many people are believing her performance in the same way that people took his mother's performance as the truth, I hope these people are never on a jury!

Money and fame. Their side, my arse.

The Archbishop needs to come out and say explicitly what happened.

I think thr confusion over the protection is what’s not being said.

So for example charles didn’t with simply with draw protection, what was withdrawn when they moved to Vancouver, was the five percent the tax payer paid to it. And to use Canadian private security not British police officers, So technically it’s withdrawn, but in reality it was. 5 percent of the cost and the British element, that was withdrawn, they still had had security paid for by Charles personally. Just not from met police officers.

Same with Archie. He would not get protection they said, this is correct, but it was only for what was paid by the tax payer. This doesn’t mean Charles or the queen would not pay for it privately and he was unprotected. Simoly like the other great grandkids he’d not have met police officers paid for by the tax payer, but private security.

It’s like the marriage thing, or the title. What’s been said is not the whole story. It’s an element of it.

I also don’t think you can carry out a church wedding anywhere but a registered place of worship. No back gardens etc. Perhaps they had a blessing but I doubt they were legally married