More Of Meghan’s Archwell podcasts…

[susan12345678]

Just to continue the discussion

I think the QM left him a cottage .

I didn’t know that

Is it not the case that the repayment money also included an unspecified amount for rent for an unspecified length of time ?
KP was badly in need of renovations plus it us used as offices for W and C so not wasted . Amner Hall was a gift from HM.

Sigh.

I watched it again just to check my recollections.

Tom Bradbury asked Meghan how they were doing in the context of mental health and issues Harry had with his mother and how she was doing.

Meghan couldn’t really answer but mentioned finding it tough being a newly wed and a new mum and a woman and kind of tapered off and then said

I guess ( it’s difficult on my mental health) but thank you for asking (very American thing to say) if I’m ok - not many people ask me that (which is true).

She was not making it all about her - she was asked a question about how she was and she responded that she wasn’t ok. She’s allowed to feel overwhelmed as was apparent. This doesn’t negate the struggles of others less fortunate or privileged - wealth and privilege do not shield you from the very real effects of issues with mental health.

I’ve often wondered if why so many people rejected her obvious distress in that moment is because it gave the British public a peek behind the curtain which wasn’t at all edifying and the knives really came out for her at that point.

I mean honestly - I went back to work full time after my first was 6 weeks old and remember it being a whirl of lack of sleep, breast feeding and pumping, hard shift work, weaning and solids. It wasn’t till I had my second child did I realise that I was wound so tightly in my sons first year of his life and if anyone had asked me - I hadn’t been ok. I’m relatively well paid and my family is comfortable - so also quite privileged. I also have extended family in Africa who are significantly less well off than me but wouldn’t begrudge me feeling overwhelmed by all the demands as a new mum. I’m not sure why that isn’t extended to Meghan?

I know I won’t change your mind - I’ve been reading these threads about Meghan for years but this is for the person like me that lurked for years.

The QM left Birkhall to Charles.

most of Diana’s money that went to Harry came from the Spencers , she was a full blown member of the aristocracy a daughter of a senior Earl both her father and brother were pages to the Queen and her father was Equerry to the Queen and lived in a grace and favour
house at Sandringham before he succeeded to Althorp. Her grandmother was lady in waiting to the QM and Johnnie Spencer courted Princess Margaret at one stage. He was determined that one if his daughters would marry Charles but the most suitable , Jane, turned him down and instead married the Queens private secretary , so it was poor Diana who ended up with him. She had a horrific childhood and was very damaged but was not the royal ingenue sometimes made out.

Tom Bradbury is on record as saying all the questions were pre approved so she knew he was going to ask and had prepared an answer it wasn’t just a caught in the headlines off the cuff response.

That said I do think this is cultural, my American SIL always says that it took her a long time to realise that the British response to this is ‘fine thank you’ it’s not a real question just a pleasantry rather like ‘let’s have a coffee sometime’ or ‘we must meet up’ . The British just say these things they don’t mean them !

This is also my understanding of their relationship dynamic @Farmageddon

They were at the very least completely co-dependent. I agree he was a controlling person generally though.

Is it not the case that the (Frogmore) repayment money also included an unspecified amount for rent for an unspecified length of time ?

That's what was given out at the time, yes; it's also why I suggested that because the RF finances are so opaque it's unsafe to assume anything

And yet still the "they paid the costs" claim is trotted out like some article of faith

I know this won’t change your mind either, but Meghan and Harry weren’t in Southern Africa on holiday. It was a work trip. They were representing the Queen, at the request of the Foreign Office (who are in charge of all official Royal visits and deploy them for their own interests) and so they were they were there as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, not Meghan and Harry.

They were also offered the option of Meghan not going on the tour, since Archie was only 5 months old, but it was their choice that they both came along.

I had a public sector role for a number of years. Hell, I’ve had a job for a longer number of years. When I’m at work, I am there to do my job, not there to further my personal interests. I have my professional demeanour and my game face on because - guess what? - I’m a professional and I’m representing my employer.

Harry and Meghan got to the end of the tour and then Harry issued an unprecedented statement on the last day accusing sections of the British tabloid press of pursuing a "ruthless campaign" against his wife and announced a lawsuit. Their “how the tour went” documentary was then heavily trailed with and climaxed by featuring Meghan talking about her own personal struggles.

Using an official tour on behalf of HM’s government to air their own personal grievances was not the purpose of their media platform. I know that, and I suspect most people with jobs know that. But then, I take my professional responsibilities seriously and don’t see pushing my own agenda as remotely part of my day job.

The reporter asked the same questions that get asked on these trips. Lets talk about you, W & H were asked in the same manner. They all answered. Very weird that MM is singled out when she is merely answering like everyone else has

not one other member of the RF has ever made it all about them the way MM did. That’s why there was so much outrage that continues to this day. She was living in the lap of luxury and still complaining.

like I said - tone deaf. Totally unable to see how insulting she was, in a country where many are in very difficult circumstances.

This is really interesting.

What if ... M was in her element, doing well, all under control.

Then she marries into the RF, and an underlying personality disorder (grandiosity) surfaces and spirals. The specific relationship with H is a folie a deux.

(I think there's a lot we don't know about the ghastly RF.)

Totally agree that the whole dynamic between John and Yoko reflected damage, but they sort of made it work in the end, it seems. I certainly think he was more of a driver than is sometimes acknowledged.

I think another comparison with Harry and Meghan might be that Yoko had the added disadvantage of being Japanese, when it came to being judged unfavourably.

Fair enough - it was ill judged based on this interpretation @Serenster - I understand and accept your particular criticism - it’s valid and reasonable

I’m still at a loss as to why - knowing that she’s from the US (because her turns of phrase and approach are very Californian) - she is so maligned for it. It’s the idea that it was because she was so self centred as opposed to being open (when she shouldn’t perhaps have been) - why do people swing all the way round to the worst interpretation?

I'd agree with that. There was prejudice and dislike for her also because she wasn't a submissive rock wife. People hated Linda too. But the accounts I have read suggest Yoko wasn't easy to like either.

I guess it seems they reached a sort of happiness in the end but the relationship was quite fucked up!

It’s the idea that it was because she was so self centred as opposed to being open (when she shouldn’t perhaps have been) - why do people swing all the way round to the worst interpretation?

Because what she said wasn’t quite cricket for all of the reasons given by Serenster.

That said I do think this is cultural, my American SIL always says that it took her a long time to realise that the British response to this is ‘fine thank you’ it’s not a real question just a pleasantry rather like ‘let’s have a coffee sometime’ or ‘we must meet up’ . The British just say these things they don’t mean them !

Haha. Yes, very true. I used to teach EFL and the first " with "Fine, thank you. And you?". That no one is asking to hear your problems.

Slight difference here though, is that Meghan might not have known but Harry definitely did and I think she would have discussed the responses to the set questions with him.

I know the media is all about making fast money, so they project this on H&M. I am not happy with that. The papers are making money out of 'culture wars' or whatever. I believe H&M are people trying to make a change. yes, they realise that their status elevates them, but to me it looks like they are trying to do good. They will drag us into the next century (some of us kicking and screamiing ).

Are H&M themselves making money in the process ? Yes, sure. People seem to think you must walk around in rags and begging bowl or wear that nuns habit. They need to make money for a living and keep on influencing. To me this is helpful, it shows that there is no shame in making money, so long as you use that platform to make the necessary changes. They are indeed influencing the middle/higher class. To me this is a good thing to get what we as a collective (UK and others) need - for people to look after us and care for our interest.

I don't think it's helpful to nitpick MM and try to bring her down. She has not done anything wrong.

Look at it as overall. It's all layered.

There is the big picture :
H&M have a platform to make huge changes, so they must use that platform.

There is also the other layers, underneath:
There is the small gestures of handouts and other charities. Which H&M have done a lot btw. This is a good way to go in slightly - it seems the rf has been doing it, but they (RF) have way more power than and in my view, they have too look upwards and forrward. Their responsibiliity is to move with the times.
So yes, H&M have to clear their names, as they must have a good reputation in order to function in the charity world.

Correct. The object of an interview is to get the subject to talk not to hog the limelight yourself!

I think this is an excellent post and explains why so many people started to question their behaviour at this point in time.

I'm sure the tour was difficult with a young baby. I'm sympathetic to that, but I was back at work (high pressure role) when my child was 3 months old and I was expected to have my game face on.

That included international travel and no respite because something "might" have happened to my child.

I had the choice to return to work (or not) so I accepted those constraints.

Just as M had the choice to go on tour or not, but having decided to do so, needed to get on with the job.

I strongly suspect the idea of being royal being a "job" rather than a set of activities you could pick and choose from wasn't really understood.

I guess ( it’s difficult on my mental health) but thank you for asking (very American thing to say) if I’m ok - not many people ask me that (which is true).

But how do you know that? We ask people all the time how they are even if we don't care. So she'll have been asked it loads of times.
But, honestly, how many times do people genuinely enquire from you how you are? Even when I'd had my children, I guess medics asked, my parents and sister. Close friends. But by 5 months people weren't still asking. And honestly work colleagues and acquaintances never even mentioned it.
(And it's also a British thing to thank people for asking, even if we know they're not that interested.)

There is the big picture :
H&M have a platform to make huge changes, so they must use that platform

They don’t have the platform. They tell themselves they do and in trying to prove it they shoot themselves in the foot time and time again. And all too soon they’ll have been living their new life outside of the Royal Family way longer than they were a couple within it and people will say - oh them, I wondered where they’d gone.

No one really has a platform to make huge changes. Even Presidents and Prime Ministers can only chip away at stuff gradually.

Celebrities and royalty and journalists and people on social media talk and talk but change comes slowly, resisted inch by inch.

It’s not futile: it’s good to contribute to a chorus for change, but anyone who thinks they’re going to change the world by talking, is delusional.

Science, now - that can change the world.

Well quite and what changes would they be looking to make? Because it isn’t clear what is driving them

@Serenster

Another excellent measured post about their role in SA

Why would someone want to change something they claimed to know nothing about just a few months prior?