More Of Meghan’s Archwell podcasts…

[susan12345678]

Just to continue the discussion

she paid for her college fees

no, she paid for some of her fees.
that is an important qualifier.
she noted scholarships and aid programmes and her job, but omitted to mention parental contributions. Funny, that. In a pre-written speech, she deliberately did not mention that both her parents helped her through college.

But she did say “it was worth every effort”. So why not mention the effort her parents in too? Wouldn’t that be the kind, compassionate, polite thing to do?
. To acknowledge the sacrifices others made for you?

But we’re not talking about a job application ffs 🤣- we’re talking about a conversation between Meghan and Oprah in which she talked about being married before the royal wedding.

Also not sure what jobs you hired for that had employees put in their wedding dates. Never been a thing in any application I have done.

Sure she should have mentioned her parents but again - it was not a lie hence why her lawyers provided that information in the court case

College tuition - deliberately left out parents. Her lawyer admits parental contributions
lion King - SA actor stated he wasn’t even there and that Her marriage meant nothing to SA. Composer said he had no recollection. Tapes show no such thing was said.
wedding that wasn’t, as per ArchBishop of Canterbury
collaborating

you can deny until you are blue in the face, but it’s clear they are not truthful.

According to the reports I've seen, I think it's the same thing. Her father took out a loan and her mother made some contribution. MM did some work study but the income from that wouldn't knock that much off the bill. I had a Saturday job when I was at uni. I don't think my dad would have been too impressed if I'd then claimed that had amounted to me paying my own fees. 😂

it was not a lie

in the infamous, never to be forgotten words of the late Alan Clark - it was being economical with the actualite.

this exchange in the Spycatcher trial gives a little more insight into the mindset of those who would try to obscure the facts

Barrister: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie?
Armstrong: A lie is a straight untruth.
Barrister: What is a misleading impression – a sort of bent untruth?
Armstrong: As one person said, it is perhaps being “economical with the truth”

She said she never saw her passport until they moved to America. So who kept it whilee she was living in Canada?
Who kept it whilst at the baby shower or the tennis match? Her security guys? Why would they want to be lumbered with it?
It's fascinating how the RF take people with them round the world just to carry her passport. I wonder what they'd say if she said, thanks, I'll carry it myself?
I wonder if Diana carried her own after she lost her HRH?

There’s an interesting discussion to be had here about activism.

There are genuine courageous activists.

And then there’s activism-lite: celebrities making speeches and personal appearances. Both the U.K. royals and H&M are in this category, along with many many others.

Some people think both do good. Some people think only the first group do anything useful. I’m inclined to think most of it is a waste of energy.

I’ve been watching the news today about the scientists who have been in Ukraine inspecting the nuclear facility caught up in the war. 6 of them have stayed behind, in a war zone, to continue supporting the safety of the facility. These people are brave. They may save us from catastrophe. They may die.

But we don’t know their names, they’re not ‘ambassadors’ for ‘causes’, they don’t give speeches at fund-raising events for ‘causes’, they don’t wear lovely frocks when they attend events where they all congratulate each other about how marvellous they are.

Meghan & Harry and Catherine & William and all their famous ‘friends’ aren’t going to change the world - they’re just a sideshow.

I do think she meant that to her and Harry, that was a special moment. I didn’t consider it a lie, even though it was not legally accurate. I don’t think the legal aspect of a marriage is relevant, anyway. But I found her sharing this to be dramatic and performative. In fact, the entire interview with Oprah seem calculated. Same with The Cut.

And that, in a nutshell, is my entire sense about Meghan. More often than not, she comes across as insincere and lacking in any humility. Her motivations for every publicized action are suspect now because there have been so many Mandela moments. Isn’t this what the word “ambitious” means when applied negatively? Out completely for oneself?

Just think about having your staff hand out back packs containing a bottle of water and some snacks, with a reporter in the car. Is it to help someone? Or to make yourself look like you want to help? Could you do it privately instead without trying to advertise it to the world? Could you hand it to them yourself instead making your security team do the awkward interaction? To me it’s only designed to make her look a certain way and not at all about the human on the other end of the interaction.

I also think we have high expectations of people we perceive to be privileged and MM was one of those people. She’s absolutely beautiful, highly intelligent, very well educated and had so many things going for her even before marrying. No one wants to her a woman like that complain about her life.

Excellently put!! Agree totally.

In some way it seems to me Meghan is emotionally stunted. She reminds me of teenage girls I knew at school who lied about themselves and their lives to impress or gain attention. Also knew someone like this at University who claimed all sorts of ridiculous things , created constant drama about herself etc. Usually, as people mature they grow out of this. Meghan seems to be stuck there.

Harry is emotionally stuck too, at the age he was when his mother died. It’s understandable in his case. In her case it’s hard to explain why she hasn’t emotionally matured however. She hasn’t endured any trauma that we know of.

The two of them feed each other’s paranoia and insecurity. They seem to feed off this sense of injustice and having been hard done by, whilst having an exaggerated sense of their own importance

Silverliningplaybook perhaps there was trauma in Megan's childhood as didn't her mother leave the family for many years leaving Thomas to bring up Megan on his own? Maybe Megan has abandonment issues too?

I think many of those people are perhaps not listening to the podcast for the reasons you think they are (and especially so since the Nelson Mandela claim).

And with the regards to the figures - I’m inclined to take them with a pinch of salt given they’re Spotifys own.

Meghan & Harry's was not, as verified by the Archbishop of Canterbury

It was the rehearsal.

This is really worth a look. South Africans celebrating M&H getting married. I know it will be dismissed on here as not crowds of people singing and dancing in the street, but I really liked how they all dressed up with hats to watch what they call a fairytale.

(And yes, I know one woman called the RF colonisers which will upset some posters. Unfortunately it's true)
p.s. I have no idea if the Mandela comment is true or not but this clip does go some way to showing the celebrations there.
@skullbabe I've read and agreed with a lot you have posted, I think you'd enjoy this clip

twitter.com/FaithfulRadical/status/1565437184399794178

yeh, I agree. She's very emotionally unaware. I really thought that she'd have reflected since the Oprah interview 18 months ago!!! but her interview in the cut shows her mindset has stayed the same, she's still emanating resentment that the public formed a perception of her. She can control her own perception of herself (although a more self-accepting self-perception would be healthier) but she makes it clear that it derails her and unsettles her that the public have a perception of her. We must see her through her lens and she is constantly trying to shape that narrative, ''subtly'' except it's never subtle.

And Harry, he was raised to be the 2nd to William and I think being second in command to MM is a role he will be unable to walk away from. I do not think they'll get divorced. I think they're in it for the long haul.

I laughed when she said white ass colonisers! it was funny. But I'm Irish and think she shouldn't have apologised. People were happy when she married in. Anybody who was divorced or mixed race or not an aristocrat or not a 20 year old virgin thought 'yes, the monarchy is now more accepting'.

I think they'll be less accepting now. George will marry an aristo because the horror story of MM will loom large in the family's narrative for a few generations to come.

Like you say, it's not really like the celebrations of
Mandelas release. Basically, it's a woman in a blue hat. It's lovely that it meant so much to her but some of those white guys looked totally nonplussed and more interested in their beer. Lol. Not sure this is representative of the whole of S Africa but yay for the British flag and the support for the RF... I guess.

Thank you, and likewise. If RL didn't intervene occasionally, I'd be on here all the time. Really enjoying this thread.

Yeh, when she is finished with somebody she is finished with them. Door slam. I think that's an abandonment wound. (i have one myself as my parents invalidated me constantly and still do it). I used to freeze and just cut people out of my life. any attempt to resolve the problem with communication was experienced only as ''losing ground''. I can do it now, if there's an important relationship at stake. I couldn't always though.

I see this in her. with her father. Her letter wasn't an attempt to connect. It was a narrative forming prop. The difficult conversation was never attempted. I don't think MM could ever acknowledge that she hurt her father because that's incompatible with her persona. So it has to be all his fault and a conversation might threaten her need for that to be the truth.

Excellent posts @TrashyPanda

At the beginning it shows a lot of people gathered there watching. Blue hat woman was the one interviewed, yes.

Of course it's not representative of the whole of SA, I just thought it was sweet and it meant a lot to some, that's all. 🤷‍♀️.

My DH would be concentrating on his beer too!

Loads of people were incredibly happy when a woman of colour married into the royal family, worldwide (me included!)

As for the discussion around Megan’s credibility, on this and previous discussions people have gone though at length the various matters where Meghan can be shown to have gone through the spectrum of polishing an event to increase her personal lustre, to being economical with the truth to flat out lying (and getting others to lie on her behalf). I have learned however that its essentially banging my head on a brick wall. Her supporters are simply not interested.

This to me is the bemusing part. The willingness demonstarted by sensible and intelligent people to perform mental gymnastics over and over again to avoid facing up to the facts is something I cannot fathom.

On this thread alone: “Well she paid for some of her college tuition herself so airbrushing her parents’ - and principally her father’s financial contributions - out of the story entirely is fair enough”. “Well, despite the fact this is not what she said, I myself have attached more personal importance to this particular aspect of a wedding that neeeded two ceremonies, so I’m presuming that’s what she meant so it’s okay”. “Well, culturally it’s quite possible someone could have said that to her because we’re all prone to exaggeration, so despite the fact her account doesn’t stand up to fact checking it’s okay”.

If you had to do that once or twice, I’d understand it. But having to do it consistently, over and over again, as each new instance comes up or past instance is revealed? You’ve drunk the kool-aid, for sure.

It was this aspect of Meghan’s behaviour that led to me taking a step back and re-assessing her behaviours. It was when they told the press in the UK firstly that Archie’s birth would be entirely private, then backtracked and said they’d announce when she was in labour, then played a “gotcha” on the press by getting their press office to announce that she was in labour after Archie was born, then dropping the news on their instagram account that I finally twigged that, actually, they were just in this for themselves. (And this was before we found out that all of this was because they had negotiated an exclusive deal with Gayle King and a US network over his birth…). Once I realised that I was having to come up with multiple rationalisations of why this behaviour was actually fine because….I couldn’t do it anymore.