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

TBH, someone has to be related to palace staff at some point - there are a lot of staff to be related to..........

Which radio show did that? They chose a subject/person and people phoned in with links and they picked the top ten.

I stood in a crowd aged 8 to welcome the Queen to our village. All I could see was her hat - it was yellow. My brother was part of the greeting party at train station though.

My mum met Princess Anne at some civic function- she complemented mum’s outfit.

Princess Alexandra gave me my degree- ‘have you got a job’ she said, ‘no’ - ‘oh well, good luck with it’

Yes Preparation & Nishky. I was being ironic - just not doing it well enough - maybe I won’t stretch to irony again.

The letter was true. No doubt about it. That news of the letter made an impact here in Australia. It was something some people talked about here a lot too.

The opinion of my friends and myself was that some of the UK papers must have been being really nastily - racist and misogynistic - about Meghan to prompt some 70 UK govt MPs to write that letter. Its not like we don’t have our own crap news outlets (Murdoch) but I don’t watch them so was unaware of the Meghan bashing that was occurring here.

OP there were no 17 lies.

Just twisting of what MM said and what the media could not verity as true or false - well suddenly, considering that the 'royal source' simply kept quiet this time. Making me believe that what H&M is all true.

@Morestrangethings

Yes I remember the letter and the MPs discussion very well that's why I was surprised at the post but it's obviously me not you as nobody else made a comment so clearly you do irony well. I was admittedly being dim but did 🤣🤣 at my reaction.

Someone said that she lied about the Proctor Gamble letter. Apparently lied so much that P&G decided to partner with them for a multiyear deal later.

And Nickelodeon did a whole piece on a letter that did not exist.

End of the day nobody knows, I do feel that they have been treated badly but the things they said has happened to them whether verified or not we would never know.

I do believe that conversation about whether her child’s skin colour would be too dark happened because it happened to me and unfortunately some people Worry if a child skin colour would be too dark. My Own mum said it to me and my aunt was worried about what the neighbours would think If my mixed child’s skin colour was too dark it really hurt and upset me
theyve appogised since and have been the most wonderful mum and aunt since
If I don’t live your life then I can’t say whether something happened or not same with everyone else on here

With all respect, no matter what you think you know about titles, I can assure you they are not directly linked to security. Security is given according to risk, which can change. Princess Anne barely has any, despite being a victim of a kidnap attempt almost 50 years ago.
I know two separate people who work and have worked in royal protection. They are constantly looking at intelligence about people who make threats. It is very possible that as Archie grew up and went to school , the Met would have decided he needed protection from officers due to threats from, for example, far right extremists.
M tried very hard to twist the facts and ‘conversations’ to make it look like the cruel
royal family didn’t care about a mixed race child. If there was no security detail for Archie, do you think they would have left him without protection in Canada when they briefly returned to the U.K. before they left the RF? No way.

Sorry to read that must have been hurtful at the time. especially with a new born but good to read they apologised - they accepted the hurt caused and you were able to move on. That makes a difference and is a wonderful outcome for you and your child.

We quite often read posters having similar experiences but dismissing it as it's non big deal so refreshing to read your honesty.

In the UK, if there had been a threat to Archies security, he would have been given security.

He's not on the UK so can never be given UK security.

He now lives in a much more dangerous country.

All good. I did nearly have a panic attack that i might have seemed to be denying incidences of racism and also misogyny towards Meghan. I think she has copped a really raw deal in this regard. As have many others.

This is what it looked like on one of the days that the Cambridge children were going to school. A press pack. Roya Nikah then went on tv and lied and said there is only one photographer.

In the meantime, the press felt that H&M did not deserve any privacy due to how much the taxpayer is paying for them.

An Irish journalist overhead/witnessed the RRs photoshopping a picture of MM, portraying her as a witch during the CW last engagement, so I do believe that they would call Archie the N word.

He now lives in a much more dangerous country.

Yet they evidently feel their family are safer there than in UK.

I wouldn't say they were out-and-out lies, as such; more throwing shade.
Re: the passport/keys - for any high-ranking member of the Royal Family, those items are seriously sensitive. Imagine if they were lost? Of course they should be locked away.
When it came to travelling, I hardly think H&M were getting an Uber to Luton and jumping on an Easyjet flight with their own documents in their carry-on. They would have staff booking the flights/organising the private jet, who would have needed the passport and probably would have smoothed the pathway through immigration for them at the other end.
So it's casting shade for Meghan to imply that she had these things taken from her as if it were some kind of hostage situation. It would have been for logistics and security.

@notanotheroneagain Many of those people in that photograph look like passersby/members of the public. I can see one fairly heavy-duty camera set up, which may be what the journalist was referring to.
And the arrangement organised by the Cambridges is that press can photograph them on the first day of the school year but leave them alone after that. There is no reason why the Sussexes could not have done something similar.
Again, it is shade-throwing on their part.

When you travel for work, yes your passports is usually handled by the staff members. They will usually ask for it for visas etc, but they give it back to you at the end of the trip. That it's kept the whole time is just plain weird. In fact, if you work for a household, it is illegal for your employer to hold on to it (have not looked up what it's like for other organisations) - ironically MM was working for a 'family', considering her critics want obtuse specifics.

Even the palace source could not dispute that they held on to her passport.

So to say she lied about this, is disingenuous !

That is one long queue of 'passersby' !

The Cambridges have to give out calendars etc. of their children. Also no one has been racist to their DC, they are praised all the time, while before he could even talk, Archie was accused of being a potential brat.

So the Procter and gamble thing not a lie either, as some media and people would have it.

I’ve got to say, Meghan Markle was a pretty impressive 12 year old.

"they are praised all the time, while before he could even talk, Archie was accused of being a potential brat".
I take it you never saw the Spitting Image (or similar programme) about Prince George? They presented him as a right thug.

And I didn't say they out-right lied. I said it was more throwing shade.

And I understood the Proctor & Gamble thing was a class project, not Meghan coming up with the idea off her own bat.

Perhaps they were all ‘passers by’ - just stopped to have a peek at the Royal kids. As a parent that would have been enough to make me nervous. Who is in the ‘passer by crowd’? I’d want security for my kids too.

plus to an Australian this whole wanting to see other peoples’ kids on their first day at school - Even ‘royal’ ones - seems a bit weird and unsettling, and Charles is our King too. I’m thinking it might have felt to Meghan (an American) even weirder and more unsettling. I know Meghan was heavily criticised for not showing Archie as a one day old newborn on the steps of the hospital she delivered him in, but I have always been horrified that the royal wives were expected to do that.

I do understand her expectation of security. Could not the Royal Family see that as being a worry of hers, a young mum, that they could solve by supplying protection? It’s not like that the royal family are stretched for a quid. And they do change tradition when it suits them.

She had protection - when she was living in the UK. But I think it was wholly unreasonable to expect the British taxpayer to fund that protection (at a massively increased rate) in the US.

It has been officially confirmed that M&H will not be spending Christmas with the royal family this year - well, I'm sure that is 100% true and they are hoping (and praying!) that the plans wont change on both sides!

Harry and Meghan had security, and if Archie was ever being cared for elsewhere, security would have been provided if needs be. They lived on the Windsor Estate which has a high level of security due to all of the resident Royals.

With regard to the baby photograph, it was absolutely their decision when to release it - or in their case, just not to. We got the odd foot, but the first photograph of a complete Archie was when they were in South Africa, meeting Desmond Tutu.

With regard to the baby photograph, it was absolutely their decision when to release it - or in their case, just not to. We got the odd foot, but the first photograph of a complete Archie was when they were in South Africa, meeting Desmond Tutu.

Totally agree it is entirely their decision on whether or not their children are papped, but they did release the christening photos and was only 4 months or so then - so before SA.

So they might have had a private blessing of their union, three days before, by the Archbishop, which they consider to be their 'real' wedding.

If that's the case that's fine, it's their private business.
But in the same sentence, they want us to know that their hugely expensive wedding, that they've fought for (remember Eugenie having to move her wedding date? Tiara-gate? Same spend as for W&K, adjusted for inflation?) that was rammed down our throat for months, was a 'spectacle' and 'for the world'.
Gee thanks.
They don't even try to hide their contempt for us, do they? It's an insult to their fans, to the royal family who went out of their way to make them happy and to the entire world that wished them well on their wedding day, let alone the uk taxpayers.
Such a stupid, rude, entitled thing to say.
If the public's interest is such a burden to them, why do they keep courting it?