Harry and Meghan - lies?

[FurAndFeathers]

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

Here is exactly what she said:

Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.
Oprah: What?
Meghan: It was really hard.
Oprah: What do you mean?
Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.
Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?
Meghan: That’s right, I know.
Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?
Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . .
‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.
Oprah: So, how do they explain to you that your son, the grandson, the great-grandson of the Queen . . . 
Meghan: Mm-hmm.
Oprah:  . . . is not going to have . . . he wasn’t going to be a prince? How did they tell you that? And what reasons did they give? And then say, ‘And so, therefore, you’re not . . . you don’t need protection’.
Meghan: There’s no explanation.
Oprah: Hmm.
Meghan: There’s no version. I mean, that’s the other piece of that . . . 
Oprah: Who tells you that?
Meghan: I heard a lot of it through Harry and then other parts of it through conversations with . . . 
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan:  . . . family members. And it was a decision that they felt was appropriate. And I thought, well . . . 
Oprah: Was the title . . . was him being called a prince, Archie being called a prince, was that important to you?
Meghan: If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course. All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’ve always just still been Meghan, right? So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.
Meghan: But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . .  You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.

Here is how I read this:

She knew that he wouldn't be titled because of the George VI convention. She was concerned about Archie's security and how Archie would feel not having a title when George, Charlotte and Louis do - maybe relating that to him being mixed race while the others and what would Archie think down the road.

We know now that Charles is King Charles and Archie and Lillibet could be titled Prince and Princess so either of them feeling left out because of being mixed race (which honestly is a valid concern Meghan has growing up mixed race in the US) is a moot point. But they do not know that then. The Queen could have lived another 10 years.

What she was saying (IMO) is that the Queen could have changed convention to make Archie a Prince in order for him to have security. That the Firm has allowed the tabloids to create a frenzy around her and Harry and they should extend protection their children because of it.

More of the interview that says she is talking about them changing convention.

Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . . 
Oprah:  . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: Well, why?
Oprah: Did you get an answer?
Meghan: No.

So I went to do more research on this and found some good information on politifact.com, which is a site I would trust. You can see that here: www.politifact.com/article/2021/mar/09/why-archie-not-prince-fact-checking-prince-protoco/

This, IMO, explains why Meghan (and Harry?) could have thought that the Queen could or would change convention for Archie. From the article above.

"Under existing convention, Archie could be named a prince should his grandfather, Prince Charles, ascend the throne, since children and male-line grandchildren of the king or queen receive the title of prince or princess. But Queen Elizabeth II made exceptions for Prince William's offspring, announcing years ago that they would all be princes and princesses."

I dont know if this "lie" was mentioned above but I have seen it everywhere that they "refused titles" for Archie. She says:

Oprah: You know, we had heard — the world, those of us out here reading the things or hearing the things — that it was you and Harry who didn’t want Archie to have a prince title. So, you’re telling me that is not true?
Meghan: No, and it’s not our decision to make, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan:  . . . even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad — and from my experience, a lot of pain.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I, again, wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.

Now I know everyone will say "the Earl of Dumbarton", why isnt he using it? Well, the only reason I can find is reported from tabloids. Literally the only proof I can find is from the Sun, Tattler, Express, Daily Mail and Telegraph. SO if anyone can find me a reliable source for why they are not using the Earl title, I am happy to look at it.

I am interested to know if James, Viscount Severn is titles on his birth certificate? Because Archies situation most closely resembles his. If he is not titled Viscount on his birth certificate.

I did see a report that Louise is named Mountbatten-Windsor on her birth certificate, but I could not find a copy of it online. It was apparently big news at the time because she was the first grandchild of Philip to have the Mountbatten-Windsor name.

So, in this particular "is this a l ie or not" scenario, based on what I have seen, it is not true that Meghan and Harry refused titles for Archie and Lillibet. Nor can I find any reason to think they refused the Earl title for the reason the tabloids stated. He could still use the Earl title, and he can now use Prince when in the UK. But in the US, it makes not a shit of difference.

Also, I want to point out so no one accuses me. Yes, I am in the US. I have loved reading about the Royal family and the history of the monarchy for years. Long before Meghan came on board. I actually prefer Henry VIII for reading and learning. Yes I know more than the average American in terms of the Royal family.

No, I am not a paid person. If I think something is a lie after I have done my research, then I will not try and twist it. It makes no difference to me if she is a proven liar or not because I dont know her. But I do think that she is being held to a different standard. That is why I appear to support her more than others here.

Lets look at the French speaking claim. Her official biography says she studied French for 6 years (not sure where 8 came from honestly).

www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex

She has stated that she took French all 4 years of High School. One of her degrees is in International Business and colleges do require second languages for degrees in the US. So it is likely that she took 2 additional years of French in College.

She did report using Duolingo to brush up on her French, so maybe those additional 2 years was while she was preparing to marry into the Royal family? Canada has both French and English as their official language and while Quebec uses French more than Toronto, many people in Canada are fluent in both. It would not be unusual if she was brushing up on her French while living in Canada.

She is also fluent in Spanish. She may have picked up some Spanish growing up in LA, but her time in Argentina is likely the reason she is fluent. That and she apparently hired a Spanish speaking trainer when she lived in Canada so she could practice.

IMO this is not a lie and I am not even sure where it came from, other than from someone out there who is jealous she is fluent in 3 languages.

The one thing that strikes me is....MNHQ needs to apply for a Royal Warrant. Bit like Fortnum & Masons or Rugby & Peller.

I have caught up on a few Royal threads just recently and the number of posters with friends and relatives working within royal circles is just amazing and worthy of a Royal Warrant 😂

Everything from Highgrove to the Royal Household to Windsor Castle, it's truly impressive!

Rigby (not Rugby)

But that's not lies.

Surely H keeps going to the media as he's trying to clear his name and protect his wife?

Kate behaves impeccably but (apart from Waitie Katie) she hasn't had to deal with the non stop abuse by the press, particularly Piers Morgan.

Yeah, I could believe the RF are liars. It’s in the realm of possibility.

I just looked at the cutting off financially claim. Here is what Harry said in the Interview:

Harry: We didn’t have a plan. That was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford . . . afford security for us.
Oprah: Wait. Hold . . . hold up. Wait a minute. Your family cut you off?
Harry: Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2020. But I’ve got what my mum left me, and, without that, we would not have been able to do this.
Oprah: OK.

I have seen that Clarence House has confirmed they helped them out through the summer of 2020.

The royal fiscal year is April 1 - March 31. 1st quarter would be April 1 - June 30th.

www.princeofwales.gov.uk/annual-review/2020-2021/income-expenditure-and-staff

It is not a lie that he was cut off in 1st quarter, nor was it a lie that they received support through the summer of 2020. June 2020 is the summer of 2020.

Harry stated that he used his mother money to pay for security, which was estimated to be $1m - $6m, more than he got from the Duchy.

Tyler Perry allowed them to live in his home for free for 3 months. They had to rush to get across the border from CA to the US before it shut down.

So, again, not a lie from Harry or Meghan on funding. Just someone, somewhere trying to spin the facts to fit a narrative by muddling the difference between June & summer.

But she didn't say 'for us, that was the real wedding', she said St George's Chapel wasn't really a wedding. That was a lie, and she made out the A of C to be a liar. It matters because the marriage ceremony is a religious event. The Queen was head of the C of E. They were married in the C of E under special licence because Meghan was divorced. The St George's ceremony was a full marriage ceremony not 'just the legal bit'.

Not proven but i am deeply sceptical of their claims that Meghan was suicidal but they were forbidden from seeking help. Are they really claiming that they wete blocked from seeking medical treatment when we know Harry's had it in the past? That the palace endangered M's life.

I don't dislike them, but these were deeply suspicious statements.

In the interest of fairness, so I do not appear to be only a cheerleader, I think the passport story was not true.

It is obvious that she, they, traveled quite a bit internationally so she had to have some type of access to her passport?

I did search to see if Royals needed to use passports and confirmed that the only one who did not was the Queen (and now Charles).

Her actual comment was this:

Meghan: You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.

Now, as an American, I can see why she would have felt trapped by not holding on to her own ID/passport/etc. We do not turn over our documents here. I do think it is true that they held these things for her, but it appears they allowed her to travel when she wanted to.

Have a look at the engagement interview. 'i didn't google him'. Her former friend and speaking agent says the Meghan reported doing a 'deep dive' to learn about him.

Here is her statement on the wedding:

Meghan: Right? Like this kind of stuff. It’s so, it’s so basic, but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics. I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . . 
Oprah: Ah!
Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that . . . 
Harry: Just the three of us.
Oprah: Really?
Harry: Just the three of us.
Meghan: Just the three of us.

Interesting that Harry would confirm it. He would know the difference and what is and is not allowed.

When I first heard this, I assumed that they felt that the rehearsal was more impactful and decided to frame the vows they used at that, and maybe even celebrate the rehearsal date as their anniversary, even though the legal marriage took place on the 19th.

The Aoc did state that he:

The archbishop was speaking to a group of European newspapers when he was asked to address Meghan's remarks.
He told Italian newspaper La Repubblica: "I met the Duke and Duchess of Sussex several times in a private and pastoral setting before the official ceremony on Saturday 19 May 2018. That day was the day of the marriage.
"If I had signed the certificate on a different day, I would have been committing a serious crime. The marriage was celebrated on the 19 May. But I won't say what occurred in our other meetings."

My opinion on this is, I believe that maybe they did run through their vows privately during one of the pastoral private visits that the AOC wont talk about, and they personally think of that as their wedding because it was more personal.

But no, they were not officially married before May 19th in private.

@onlylarkin

The 8 years French was said by M on an interview whilst on Suits, and she said 4 years recently.

In her own words Twitter clip

@Lolliesareonme

Thank you. I will search for the complete interview to see if there was more context or not.

I want to address the college tuition. Thomas Markle did not pay 100% for her tuition. No way he could have. Current cost for a single degree at Northwestern, if one is paying 100% cash, is $87,804 per year. It would have been less back then, but not by that much. Over 4 years, paying at 100%, it would have cost $351,216 for a 4 year degree She has 2 majors, which would have added some cost to this.

undergradaid.northwestern.edu/aid-basics-eligibility/cost-of-attendance.html

She did get academic scholarships, which would lessen the cost. It is reported that Doria helped pay some as well. She may have done a work-study program through the college, which allows students to work on campus in order to help pay some tuition.

It is getting near bedtime here, so I will do more research tomorrow on this.

But no, Thomas Markle did not pay for her college in full. He may have paid for her Catholic school education though. Will look tomorrow.

I do want to keep track of the 17 lies that I have researched for my records.

She said the royal racist said what they claimed when she was pregnant. Harry contradicted her and said it was around the time they were getting engaged.

He said his father cut him off financially (they were still receiving money from him at that stage) proved by financial statements. - By my accounts, this is not a lie. He said he was cut off in the first quarter, April - June Clarence house said summer of 2020. Those are the same thing. Both Harry and Meghan said that they were most concerned about security. Harry said he used his moms money to pay for security. - Not a lie

She said they refused to give Archie a title because he is mixed race, it is in fact protocol. - My research found that they both knew that Archie would not have a title due to convention but that they were both worried enough about Archies security that they wanted to talk about a change to protocol. It was mentioned that the Queen changed things for William and Catherine's children, and she did. I will not type out more of my info here, you can read it in my PP. - Not a lie, just super unrealistic expectations

She said they got married prior to the wedding which was a fake wedding. That was a lie, disputed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. - They were not legally married before May 19th. Saying so is a lie.

I do believe that they may have run through vows privately before hand during one of the pastoral visits and they consider that their marriage and have hung the copies of the vows they used that day. I also want to point out that the entire world expected that wedding, including tons of us in the US. So no, they could not have skipped it.

She said their was a fire in Archie's room in SA, it was a smoking heater and he wasn't in the room at the time.

She said a cast member of lion king said they danced in the streets when she got married - no cast member spoke to her that night.

She contradicts herself in interviews, saying she studied French for 8 years and then saying it was 4. - I cant even believe that I am disputing this because it is so stupid. She officially says, on her bio, that she took 6 years of French. 4 of that in High School. Since she holds an International Business Degree, it is very likely she was required a foreign language in college as well. She also lived in Canada which has 2 official languages, French and English. She is tri-lingual and hold 2 degrees, one in acting one in International Business.

She said her passport was taken from her and she couldn't leave of her own free will, she went on multiple holidays abroad during that time. - I do not believe that she was held hostage at the Palace, but I can see why should would have felt trapped without her documents.

She gushed over her wonderful father in her blog and then abruptly cut him off. - I wish I could soft bold this, because I haven't researched it officially. But I can say that Thomas Markle is a peace of shit who current has a restraining order against him for threatening to kill the UK tabloidist (I do not want to call him a journalist so I am making up my own word). Information on the Markle family could support its own thread. I would have cut his ass off too after the shit he pulled the last 4 years.

She says she worked jobs to put herself through college, her father paid for her private education.

She's made statements about a letter she write to proctor & gamble, they cannot find any record of this happening.

She says she had no support when entering the RF, she had advisors and lessons in etiquette and special help offered from camilla, which she rejected.
There are discrepancies in her story about the Turkish spa visits, in timings and location. These would've been expensive expensive luxury outings, she claimed they were living on the breadline at the time.

Onlylarkin - thank you. Those 4 consecutive posts of yours are very thorough. I wish I had half your discipline and focus.

😂

It’s like the open letter from 72 Britsh MPs calling out “the outdated , colonial undertones of these stories,” never happened.

Agreed. They likely both cried. And this, like much else should have remained private.

What she was saying (IMO) is that the Queen could have changed convention to make Archie a Prince in order for him to have security. That the Firm has allowed the tabloids to create a frenzy around her and Harry and they should extend protection their children because of it.

Security isn't set up so that those with titles get it, and those without titles don't. Making him a prince wouldn't have meant that automatically he got security. The York princesses don't have publicly funded security on a day to day basis. As parents, I can understand why H&M would want him to have security, but she was incorrect (misinformed?) to say he should be a prince so that he would get security.

Also she said she knew nothing about the RF or who Harry was yet her childhood bestie said they visited London in their mid teens, Meghan wanted to be Diana 2.0 and she wasn’t shocked by the engagement as it had been her plan for many years, Harry had fallen for her play and Meghan gets what she wants. If and I say if as this is here say from someone, who says she was best friends with her from kindergarten, this would perhaps explain why Meghan reportedly didn’t want advice as she may have believed she knew what to do. pagesix.com/2017/11/28/meghan-markle-wants-to-be-princess-diana-2-0-old-pal-says/

Oh the London thing is true. There is a daily mail link to this article with a photo of them outside Buckingham palace.