Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry and Meghan - lies?

1000 replies

FurAndFeathers · 28/10/2022 19:51

Ok I’m keeping my fingers crossed this thread will not descend into an unsubstantiated bun fight! Please bear with me.

I’m definitely no Royalist, and am pretty ambivalent about H and M but from the little I’ve read they seem to have been treated pretty badly. However I keep seeing on other threads here that their claims have all be proven to be lies, which would make me much less sympathetic to them. But I can’t find any verification for this.

So I’m asking more knowledgeable posters - what lies specifically have H&M told and where’s the evidence to the contrary please?

thank you

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 14:04

Diverseopinions · 30/12/2022 13:59

I think the crucial difference is being related to the people you are critisizing.

Anyone can critisize capitalism, atheism, the Church, Hollywood. That is their right. Usually they would like their criticism to a bigger argument about what it is to be a human being; how can society be better, going forward. These types of opinion polemics are designed to promote debate.

Sometimes people in the know critisize an industry, e.g. former teenage models critisize the modelling industry and the importance placed by it on being very thin. Former child footballers critisize the ruthlessness of the Club system. If they do this, they are seriously arguing for radical reform or abolition of these industries.

Meghan and Harry claim to be presenting their personal story. Their argument, purportedly, is that they received unequal treatment. They would like their children to be Prince and Princess and they are using and wishing to retain their titles into the future. They are neither presenting an argument against privilege or against monarchy. It is useful to them on the terms they want to set.

They have slurred the Royal Family in the process of making their case to have been unfairly made unpopular by the press and specific royals of a similar generation, i.e. William and Kate, but not Prince Philip who made hugely inappropriate comments about racial characteristics, but apparently is ok, cos he is like a vote royal and not in competition with them for popularity.. But if the public rallied and wrote petitions to have Harry do more royal duties in his manner of doing it, the couple would be pleased. They are invoking all sorts of arguments to try to make themselves popular again, but they haven't got a serious purpose in mind - just using the royal family in whatever way seems most useful to them at any one time.

This may change, and they might in future say they believe that the British Monarchy ought to be abolished. This would be fair, if they believe it, and it seems to be the logical end game of their mission.

However, in the absence of any points to support that anti-monarchy interpretation - e.g. a public statement when they accepted the JFK Foundation Award, rather than a soft peddle,counsellor speak about stating out own truth, it looks like a personal profile improving campaign and it looks too like subtle blackmail. It is a drip, drip of damaging statements and some weird veiled threats, like in that article on which Meghan looked fearsome in green, like you'd visualise a beautiful witch from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe or the Queen from Sleeping Beauty. She was saying that she hadn't signed anything saying that she would not speak out and she can be silent or vocal as she chooses. She was doing threatening in an artistic way.

So the couple don't have the honesty to say what they do mean. Or rather they have no serious meaning, they just want greater popularity, more money and a high profile. The royals are just their stepping stone to get it.

Harry has thrown his family under the bus. He will say anything to suit the moment. It has started to damage the serious role of monarchy, well the JFK Foundation award did, the only thing, I'd say. But he doesn't stop for breath.

Apologies, I’m afraid I rather lost your thread. Could you TL;DR?

OP posts:
Blip · 30/12/2022 14:14

@Roussette "Do you not find it odd that you are criticising those who hate bullying, hate vile posts and slurs, horrible nicknames, continual threads about a couple they don't know... so that some posters come on and bring some balance to the threads and call out horrible posts... yet it's OK according to you for hundreds of threads slagging the couple off to carry on without any pushback.? What in god''s name are the 'detractors' (my polite term) trying to achieve?"

I don't like it when people seek to establish false dichotomies and to only promote division and polarisation.

I haven't said the things you say I have and I'm not sure why you are trying to make out that I have.

Roussette · 30/12/2022 14:21

Blip · 30/12/2022 14:14

@Roussette "Do you not find it odd that you are criticising those who hate bullying, hate vile posts and slurs, horrible nicknames, continual threads about a couple they don't know... so that some posters come on and bring some balance to the threads and call out horrible posts... yet it's OK according to you for hundreds of threads slagging the couple off to carry on without any pushback.? What in god''s name are the 'detractors' (my polite term) trying to achieve?"

I don't like it when people seek to establish false dichotomies and to only promote division and polarisation.

I haven't said the things you say I have and I'm not sure why you are trying to make out that I have.

I am quite obviously talking in general about the type of threads, you musn't take it personally. You question what those who don't dislike H&M hope to achieve. I was asking the same question of the detractors. Quite a valid point I feel.

Just because someone doesn't think H&M are spawn of the devil, that doesn't mean they are 'promoting division and polarisation'. I would say that is more the modus operandi of the detractors with the hundreds of threads vilifying them.

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 14:31

You question what those who don't dislike H&M hope to achieve

yes - god forbid we should dare to indulge in some ambivalent musings!

instead it must be ‘obsessive’ ‘supportive’ and we must ‘have an agenda’

quite a lens to view the world through! I’m not sure i’m have the energy for that level of analysis 😁

OP posts:
Blip · 30/12/2022 14:33

"yet it's OK according to you for hundreds of threads slagging the couple off to carry on without any pushback."

How is that a comment about people in general as opposed to me specifically?

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 14:38

Blip · 30/12/2022 13:56

That sounds like a slur on me

you’re free to interpret it how you like 🤷‍♀️

OP posts:
Blip · 30/12/2022 14:41

I have pointed out that on this thread - as with many others on similar subjects - a handful of individual posters tend to overwhelm the rest with their sheer volume of posts, which frequently focus on criticising other posters.

Not an opinion, just fact. I know the people involved dislike having this highlighted but that doesn't make it untrue or indeed a personal attack.

GentlySobbing · 30/12/2022 14:44

@FurAndFeathers

Here you go: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/meghan-markle-biography-court-mail-b1955569.html?amp

Meghan provided a written list of discussion points to be taken to the writers of Finding Freedom. Harry wrote in an email that they needed to be able to plausibly deny that they had done this. Then lo! they told the court that they had had nothing to do with the book, until the disclosure process proved otherwise. Meghan then had to apologise to the court.

They've really got some nerve in accusing others of playing dirty games with the media when they are doing exactly the same!

Also notable that Meghan tried to cast doubt on her half sister's credibility by highlighting the fact that the half sister has children by different fathers. Absolute rank misogyny. Meghan has absolutely no right to describe herself as a feminist after that nasty episode.

Diverseopinions · 30/12/2022 14:44

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 14:04

Apologies, I’m afraid I rather lost your thread. Could you TL;DR?

I don't think Harry and Meghan are undermining the Royal Family in a direct way. I wouldn't personally make a cause and effect link between their TV programmes and any anti-British activity by foreign powers.

I think there is going to be some negative knock-on effect from what Meghan and Harry do say. But it will be a subtle erosion of dignity and reputation like the wearing down of a big cliff face by the sea, over decades.

I think it would be more honest if H and M said what they think of the institution of monarchy. If they think it is too old-fashioned, then say so. It looks like they like it, because they like their titles and Prince Philip gets a good shout out. It looks like they like the royal cache quite a bit.

There isn't coherence to their attitude, because they change their tack and approach depending on what the moment requires. Their only unwavering aim is to be rich, popular and influential.

Roussette · 30/12/2022 14:45

Blip · 30/12/2022 14:33

"yet it's OK according to you for hundreds of threads slagging the couple off to carry on without any pushback."

How is that a comment about people in general as opposed to me specifically?

Because you said it was OK ? You are OK with endless criticism on threads but woe betide anyone pushes back because that's 'polarisation and division'.

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 14:47

GentlySobbing · 30/12/2022 14:44

@FurAndFeathers

Here you go: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/meghan-markle-biography-court-mail-b1955569.html?amp

Meghan provided a written list of discussion points to be taken to the writers of Finding Freedom. Harry wrote in an email that they needed to be able to plausibly deny that they had done this. Then lo! they told the court that they had had nothing to do with the book, until the disclosure process proved otherwise. Meghan then had to apologise to the court.

They've really got some nerve in accusing others of playing dirty games with the media when they are doing exactly the same!

Also notable that Meghan tried to cast doubt on her half sister's credibility by highlighting the fact that the half sister has children by different fathers. Absolute rank misogyny. Meghan has absolutely no right to describe herself as a feminist after that nasty episode.

Yes that was my understanding of the situation too - it was explained earlier in the thread and given as a verified examples of a lie.

That’s why I was querying the post by @JoyPeaceSleep

OP posts:
Blip · 30/12/2022 14:47

Why do you keep repeating that "I said it was ok" - where did I say that? Why are you making stuff up?

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 14:49

Blip · 30/12/2022 14:47

Why do you keep repeating that "I said it was ok" - where did I say that? Why are you making stuff up?

Well you seem to be ok with posters that say they ‘detest’ them.

how is that different to expressing hatred again?

OP posts:
Roussette · 30/12/2022 14:49

I have pointed out that on this thread - as with many others on similar subjects - a handful of individual posters tend to overwhelm the rest with their sheer volume of posts, which frequently focus on criticising other posters.

I take issue with this. There have been upwards of 700 threads and in the beginning it was all detractors, literally 99%. I was annihilated on those threads, more than you would ever believe.
More people are now feeling different about H&M and so they post accordingly. How you can call it overwhelming god alone knows. Do you want an echo chamber with just those who despise H&M? No fair discussion 50/50?

And p.s. you can't police how many times a poster posts. So what if someone posts a lot? Complain about it to MNHQ and see what they say... I bet they love the traffic.

jazzybelle · 30/12/2022 14:52

Claims are quite easily found in the press -

These include Meghan wrongly claiming she and Harry were married in secret by the Archbishop of Canterbury and alleging that Archie was not allowed to be a Prince because of his skin colour.

In his own tell-all chat, Piers told Fox News host Tucker Carlson a “woke cancel culture mob” drove him out of his morning job with ITV.

Piers, 56, said: “She’s a delusional actress who wants to make millions off the royals while trashing the family.”

Buckingham Palace did not want to comment.

DISPROVED

Real wedding took place earlier

This claim has since been proved not to have happened.

Meghan claimed her and Harry were secretly married by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the garden at Nottingham Cottage three days before the official wedding in May 2018.

But their wedding certificate proved this was not true.

The Archbishop of Canterbury later confirmed it didn’t happen, saying: “I would have committed a serious criminal offence if I signed it knowing it was false”.

Archie ‘wasn’t allowed to be prince’

Meghan claimed the Royal Family refused Archie’s birthright to be a prince after “concerns and conversations” about “how dark” his skin would be when he was born.

However, according to royal protocol, Archie can only receive a title when Prince Charles takes the throne.

King George V issued a writ in 1917 that only royal offspring who are in direct line of succession can be made prince and receive HRH titles.

Meghan claims she “never looked up my husband online” and “didn’t do any research into the monarchy”.

But according to the authors of Finding Freedom, Meghan looked up Harry via a thorough Google search for their first date.

Meghan had also known Princess Eugenie for several years before meeting Harry and old school friend Ninaki Priddy said Meg was “fascinated” by both the Royal Family and Princess Diana.

Meghan ‘hadn’t seen sister for almost 20 years’

Meghan dismissed her estranged half-sister Samantha Markle by saying she had not seen her for “at least 18, 19 years”.

But a photograph shows Meghan smiling and with her arm around with Samantha at her graduation in 2008.

TV wasn’t ever part of the plan

Meghan agreed when Harry said working with TV companies, such as streaming giant Netflix, was not part of the plan when they first planned a move to the US.

It has since been revealed the couple started speaking to Quibi video streaming in early 2019.

EXAGGERATED

Meghan’s passport was taken from her

Meghan claimed during the Oprah chat that she’d had her passport taken from her.

She also said she was unable to “just leave”.

However, after meeting Harry, she must have still had her passport to hand – as the couple jetted off on 13 holidays together, including breaks in Ibiza, Nice and Amsterdam.

She also travelled without Harry to New York and Toronto.

Meghan Markle was seen cheering on Serena Williams at the US Open in New York City in 2019. Picture: Gotham/GC Images
Meghan Markle was seen cheering on Serena Williams at the US Open in New York City in 2019. Picture: Gotham/GC Images
Silent or silenced?

Meg claimed she was silenced by the royal family.

But in reality, she went on 73 public appearances as a working royal.

She gave an interview with the BBC with Harry for her engagement.

And famously, she gave a tearful interview to Tom Bradby for ITV when in South Africa.

Papers ‘withheld story on her dad to cause maximum harm’

Meghan claimed the Mail on Sunday withheld a story on her father Thomas Markle setting up fake pap pics for a month.

She said the paper only published those images in its edition closest to her wedding.

In fact, the newspaper was working on the story for several weeks and only chose to publish it 24 hours after securing final CCTV proof.

Press created drama over Thomas Markle

Meghan claimed the press created news about Thomas to create drama.

But Thomas says he spoke to the press because Meghan cut him off just days before her wedding.

He is demanding his own Oprah interview.

Security was taken away

Meghan said security was removed from her, Harry and Archie, despite fears for their safety.

But when they quit their royal duties, they lost their Internationally Protected Persons status.

Senior royals do not get a taxpayer-funded 24/7 security if they are not working royals.

RELATED: Kate photo that proved Meghan wrong

Press team didn’t defend her

Meghan said her press team did not defend her in the news.

But journalists say many things were kept out of the newspaper when her press team said they were untrue.

Her press team launched two IPSO complaints – winning one and losing the second.

Banned from lunching with pals

The Duchess said she was banned from going to lunch with friends.

In fact, newspapers turned down many paparazzi photos of Meghan out of the confines of the palace.

Royal author Andrew Morton described how Meghan was often seen walking to Whole Foods Supermarket on Kensington High Street.

No training in how to be royal

She claimed there was no training on how to be a royal – but like all members of the Royal Family, Meghan was sent on SAS training to deal with potential kidnapping.

Finding Freedom revealed she was also given informal training on royal life including exiting cars in a skirt and curtsying.

Holiday parties with the paps

Meghan described cosy ‘tabloid holiday parties’, which she claimed were held between royals and the press at the palace.

Such parties don’t exist.

However, occasionally journos are invited in for a pre-tour get-together.

UNPROVABLE

Concerns over Archie’s skin colour

The single most damaging claim for the royals were allegations of “conversations” and “concerns” about the colour of Archie’s skin when she was pregnant.

She has refused to name the member of the Royal Family she alleges made the comment.

But her story differs from Harry’s. He says the conversation happened at the beginning of their relationship.

Ignored when she asked for help

She told Oprah she spoke to human resources rather than the Royal Family.

But over the years, several members of the Royal Family have sought help, including Prince Harry.

The Duke even fronted initiative Heads Together with charity Mind to end stigma of mental health.

It is also understood Meghan got help from Diana’s former confidante Julia Samuelson and had her own therapist.

Kate made Meg cry

Meghan claims Kate made her cry at a bridesmaid fitting before her wedding.

But journalist behind the original story – which alleged that in fact Meghan made Kate cry – sticks by her sources.

There have subsequently been claims that Kate went to apologise and Meg threw flowers in the bin.

Roussette · 30/12/2022 14:54

Blip · 30/12/2022 14:47

Why do you keep repeating that "I said it was ok" - where did I say that? Why are you making stuff up?

I make nothing up. You said this... "I don't like it when people seek to establish false dichotomies and to only promote division and polarisation."

So we don't agree with you. And that - according to you - is promoting division and polarisation. It is not. It is a different opinion. Accept it.

From that viewpoint of yours, I gather you don't want anyone thinking H&M are OK and posting thus.

Roussette · 30/12/2022 14:56

Jazzy... that post is far too long to make sense of, or understand. It appears to be a list of claims, unknown sources, and DMail and MoS bunkum.

bakalava · 30/12/2022 15:00

"There's always goin' to be an Andrew!" as the line in the brilliant Prince Andrew: The Musical goes. 😁
When you think about it in the context of a few generations, there is always a spare and his wife exposing the rot within the institution and being a bit sly and a bit naughty.
It is a good thing that H&M get on with the Yorks because they are very much the Andrew & Fergie of the following generation using more modern media tools at their disposal to basically air the same grievances. They are already building up little Louis to be the next one who takes on this role.
It is extremely cyclical which makes one wonder whether it is worth being so invested in one side of the family or the other. They are all feeding from the same trough so it is a false polarization in any case.

MarshaMelrose · 30/12/2022 15:02

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 13:38

Interesting then that so many posters who wish them ill are so keen to be ‘excited’ into writing about them

surely the sensible thing would be to simply say nothing rather than continually stoke discussion

No one wants to talk endlessly about HAM in real life. 😁 But here there are people who will chat about it at their own leisure. They like the discussion that's why they keep stoking it. You must be interested too or you wouldn't have started a thread inviting people to discuss lies they've told. What exactly did you think would be the outcome of that? You're fuelling these comments you're making out you don't like.

BethJ62 · 30/12/2022 15:05

Roussette · 30/12/2022 14:56

Jazzy... that post is far too long to make sense of, or understand. It appears to be a list of claims, unknown sources, and DMail and MoS bunkum.

On the contrary , it sums things up rather well !

Blip · 30/12/2022 15:07

@Roussette
"Blip
"yet it's OK according to you for hundreds of threads slagging the couple off to carry on without any pushback."

Please stop telling lies about me. I haven't said this and nowhere have you proved that I have yet you repeatedly insist this.
If you keep on telling a lie it doesn't make it true.

AutumnCrow · 30/12/2022 15:08

Also I don't think 'H&M' are one organism. They have completely different aspirations, backgrounds, motivations and relationship roles.

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 15:12

MarshaMelrose · 30/12/2022 15:02

No one wants to talk endlessly about HAM in real life. 😁 But here there are people who will chat about it at their own leisure. They like the discussion that's why they keep stoking it. You must be interested too or you wouldn't have started a thread inviting people to discuss lies they've told. What exactly did you think would be the outcome of that? You're fuelling these comments you're making out you don't like.

Oh of course. But I’m aware I’m choosing to do this.

I’m not blaming H&M for making me do it.

that’s the difference

OP posts:
FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 15:16

It is extremely cyclical which makes one wonder whether it is worth being so invested in one side of the family or the other. They are all feeding from the same trough so it is a false polarization in any case.

agreed.

there are echoes of the Yorks, of Edward and Wallace etc etc.

it’s basically Eastenders for rich people 😂

I think it’s the vitriol of some that fascinates me. There is a lot of deeply venomous posting against two people we’re unlikely to meet or who will affect our lives in any way. It seems a very negative way to focus emotions

OP posts:
Roussette · 30/12/2022 15:17

Blip · 30/12/2022 15:07

@Roussette
"Blip
"yet it's OK according to you for hundreds of threads slagging the couple off to carry on without any pushback."

Please stop telling lies about me. I haven't said this and nowhere have you proved that I have yet you repeatedly insist this.
If you keep on telling a lie it doesn't make it true.

Please read my post of 14.54. If you don't mean that those who don't agree that H&M are to be despised/disliked are not creating division and polarisation, just say so. Because that is what you said.

I just have a different opinion about that than you. That is all.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.