Discussing the things we liked about Harry and Meghan's Netflix documentary series

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

There are so many threads on things posters hated about Harry and Meghan, the Netflix series, and fair play to those posters, so I thought I would have a go at stating a thread discussing some of the things that posters liked about the series.

I'll start.

I liked that this was supposed to be this bomb detonation, but has actually been a measured, warm, and loving look at H and M's relationship, and the pressures that the press put on them, and also on other royals. I genuinely did not notice anything incendiary. Maybe that is still to come.

I enjoyed the thoughtful insights shared on the invisible contract, especially, as Harry says, having to perform for a press that you know has said hurtful things about people you love.

I loved the warm memories of Sandringham, and meeting the Queen. And Meghan's memories of growing up. I think it was a wise, though sad, that they did not include Thomas. I really loved hearing Doria: my favourite bit is when a journalist offered her money, for an interview about Meghan and she said, "That's my child!"

I also learned for the first time about Meghan's relationship with her sister Samantha's daughter Ashleigh. I had no idea that she had been raised by her grandparents who adopted her, or that she had such a warm and caring relationship with Meghan. Along with Doria's, that was my favourite interview.

I enjoyed hearing from her childhood friends, as it is often said here that she had no friends who came to the wedding etc, just celebrities. They seem a tight nit grip who have been here fr years, and I am glad she has them.

I was gobsmacked that she needed security in Toronto after the relationship was announced.

I also thought the discussion on racism, in its wider context of colonialism and imperialism, was very well done, but then again it was led by David Olusoga and Afua Hirsch, who are always great, and I love their writing.

Most of all I love that Harry confronted head on the Nazi uniform debacle, and what he learned from it. And I loved, loved, loved, the segment on his life in Lesotho where they gave him the Sesotho name, "Mahale". A wonderful name.

“It was one of the biggest mistakes of my life,” Harry said. “I felt so ashamed afterwards. All I wanted to do was make it right. I sat down and spoke to the chief rabbi in London, which had a profound effect on me. I went to Berlin and spoke to a Holocaust survivor. I could have just ignored it and made the same mistakes over again in my life. But I learned from that.”

I predicted on another thread that Harry would address this and other episodes head on in his book. I was scoffed roundly for this. I expect him to say more in is book, and I am happy to be proved right.

If only for this, I am very glad they did this.

"Dershowitz has consistently denied any sexual contact with Giuffre, saying he had never met her. He told The Associated Press three years ago that his documents contradicted Giuffre’s claims as to his whereabouts. He said Giuffre’s story had evolved over time and that she initially didn't implicate him in her sex trafficking account.

In court papers in 2019, Dershowitz said Giuffre's claims had led him to suffer severe emotional distress, including “cardiac conditions.”"

@Xenia - I don’t get what your point is re
Alan Dershowitz and Ms Giuffre.

Really? You honestly don’t understand that on the basis of VG making a mistake about Alan Dershowitz it’s entirely possible she has also been mistaken about others?

Yes really?
What has that got to do with PA and VG?

Im pretty sure you’re smarter than you’re pretending otherwise. But just in case - there will be those who consider the possibility that because she was mistaken about one person she may just have been mistaken about others also. The Duke of York for eg.

Perhaps the wider public weren’t aware of the situation with Alan Dershowitz and by bringing it to peoples attention they can now decide if it’s going to change their opinion on Andrew or not.

Heck... she was very young, she was trafficked (proven), you expect her to get everythng right 100%?? No, it doesn't change my opinion on him one little bit.

The Queen was 'mistaken' ... oops memories may vary, flash of memory Paul Burrell Diana possessions etc. If the Queen can't manage it, you can't criticise a young girl like this

You are sounding very judgemental about VG. Good on her for pursuing this case and good luck with her charity SOAR (Speak Out Act Reclaim) evolved from her previous charity for trafficked victims.

I wonder if PAndrew actually made the 'substantial donation' to the charity for trafficked victims as part of his out of court settlement?

@Lampzade

if VG lied/was confused, her credibility as a witness would be hampered In a he said / she said situation in court.

This isn’t trying to diminish her experiences in any way but it’s the reality of going into court as a confused witness/liar (words the defence lawyer would use) and she then would have needed other corroborating witnesses to support her story.

Going to court would have been a risky strategy for VG, her teams legal strategy was always to push for a settlement, just as PA’s was as they didn’t want to the unpredictability of court.

While posters might not expect her to get it 100% right - a few court of law has higher expectations

Rousette, I’m not sure if you were replying to me or not. But just in case -

You see, this is where people are blinded by their own beliefs. It’s like the ‘anyone who has an unfavorable opinion of Meghan is a racist’ mantra.

You’ve automatically assumed my last two posts meant I was judging VG when I was in fact explaining to a poster who was having difficulty following the conversation just why some people may now have doubts about Andrew.

By all means continue to think of me what you will. I don’t feel the need to convince you otherwise.

I don't think anything negative about you, I aim to never make my posts personal because I wish to be posting on the content of a post. Not the poster. And that is what I am doing.

And I have never ever said... anyone who has an unfavourable opinion of Meghan is a racist. In fact, I posted a long post about my views on this yesterday. I accept there are other reasons too for not liking her.

Personally the Dershowitz factor has not altered my opinion about what Andrew did and knew one little bit. He spent a lot of time with Epstein, not just in his NY mansion but on yachts, on his private island, and allegedly New Mexico and Paris. I think we only know a tiny bit of how entangled PA was with JE. So, no, my opinion has not altered in the slightest.

As for other posters and will it change their mind on PA... who knows.

I iddn't think the prince should pay her off . He has and that is his choice, but he could not remember her and she was of age as it were at the time and I very much doubt anyone told him even if she and he had got together that she was acting against her will.

Alan D was strung out to dry even though he had absolute proof he was not with her and I was relieved when he was able to prove it and he so graciously was able to say recollections may vary but I was not there. So of course the point was if she could change her story so much about Alan D and get the wrong person she could have done the same with Prince A and thus all the comments about Prince A on line might well be defamatory. As Prince A chose to pay her off without admitting anything he won't get his day in court to disprove things.

None of that means VG was not the victim of course of other men. Randy Andy as he was known in his youth was a business ambassador for the UK and probably did generate some very profitable deals for the benefit of the British tax payer but he had to hang out in dubious company at times for that and who paid for his house was never well resolved so I certainly don't think he was well advised (or he did not listen to his advisers).

I have never met Meghan M and continue to have an open mind about her and everyone else. I think it is a pity she did not continue full time work as an actress as we probably do need more full time career women marrying into the royal family, but that is her choice. Perhaps she will return to acting. I liked her in Suits.

Heck... she was very young, she was trafficked (proven), you expect her to get everythng right 100%?? No, it doesn't change my opinion on him one little bit.

If you're making serious allegations against people then, yes, I'd expect you to be 100% right. It was only because Dershowitz was a lawyer that he could fight it like he did. And he's,been in and out if court over it for years. But that could have ruined his business, his relationships and his life. It might have done for all we know. He's the one person who has fought her the whole way - and she retracts.
Of course that undermines her credibility. It doesnt negate that she was trafficked but there's now doubt that if she was wrong about DA, she could be wrong about any of the others.

Absolutely this.

Do we expect her to be 100% right when she is accusing men of sexual offences? Yes! Jesus.

It would seem to bring her credibility into question somewhat.

None of it happened then? The 13 year old triplets brought over for JE's birthday present, Annie & Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransom and many many others. And VG was lying about all of it. As were the others?

Like Prince Andrew. Okey doke.

There are many layers to this.

There are obviously some misogynistic and racist media, SM and individuals.

There are also some progressive media, SM and individuals that are not biased and fully supportive of H&M situation.

There is also some progressive media, SM and individuals who are not biased and who are critical of H&M words and behaviours.

There are also some progressive media, SM and individuals who are critical of some of their behaviors and words and supportive of some of their words and behaviors.

I suppose the Q is which parts matter and to whom?

All parts of the media, social media and also H&M each have skin in the game in monetising their narrative to drive traffic to their websites and / or to build a brand to attract revenue from advertisers, projects or collaborations.

The opinion of the general public is only relevant to each side from a monetary perspective.

Why do you do that? Try to make out I said something I didn't?

I said, "It doesnt negate that she was trafficked". But if you're going to accuse people of such heinous crimes, then yes, you have to be 100% right. Otherwise, what? It's OK to accuse 100 people and have an error factor of 10%...because she was only 17.
Her life was ruined and everyone's sympathetic to that. But you make false accusations and you're ruining someone else's life. How galling must it have been for AD to know he's innocent but just by knowing JE, it's automatically believed he must be guilty if VG says so.
And now she's opened that door, others she's accused will use this result to say she made mistakes about them too, regardless if she has or hasn't.

Michelle Obama had some very direct constructive criticism for H&M directly after the OW interview especially on racism and how H&M conduct themselves in service.

Is MO then being racist?

Additionally OW engineered a very high profile interview with Gayle King the day after The Queens death to distance herself from the content and media storm of the H&M interview she conducted the year before.

Michelle Obama did not criticise Meghan. She has never criticised her. Constructive advice is not the same as constructive criticism, especially when asked what her advice would be.

What she said seven months after Meghan married was:

Like me, Meghan probably never dreamt that she'd have a life like this, and the pressure you feel—from yourself and from others—can sometimes feel like a lot,"

"So my biggest piece of advice would be to take some time and don't be in a hurry to do anything. I spent the first few months in the White House mainly worrying about my daughters, making sure they were off to a good start at school and making new friends before I launched into any more ambitious work. I think it's okay—it's good, even—to do that."

"What I'd say is that there's so much opportunity to do good with a platform like that—and I think Meghan can maximise her impact for others, as well her own happiness, if she's doing something that resonates with her personally."

Later she has praised her friend for doing exactly that:

"Thank you to my friend, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex @sussexroyal, a thoughtful leader who is breaking the mold and making our world better for it. Whether meeting with our @ObamaFoundation Leaders or helping girls around the world seek the education they deserve, she is an inspiration to so many."

She has called Meghan frank and down-to-earth. In response to the Oprah interview, Michelle did a very good job of pulling the questions around to more general statements on public service and inter-racial relationships (from 11.37) but these were diplomatic responses - there was no direct criticism of Meghan or the Queen, nor was there underlying/covert criticism there particularly: she acknowledged that allegations of racism would not surprise her but as it was family, she hoped forgiveness and clarity would resolve things.

Sorry, healing rather than clarity.

And there it is again. The ‘if you don’t believe everything VG said (even when she was mistaken) it means you don’t believe anything she said’.

@Roussette

do you understand that a court has to determine whether a witness is ‘credible’. If evidence is provided of lying, the witness may not be considered credible ? especially in a she said / he said scenario without witnesses.

it’s not about sympathy, or feelings, we all
have those but in a court of law it’s about establishing the facts.

as I said if there was any moral justice all JE’s money locked in trusts beyond the reach of his victims would be released to them.

Well... it never got to court so we'll never know whether VG was a credible witness will we?
PAndrew obviously wanted to knock it on the head hence the payout.

@Roussette

They BOTH chose a settlement, this cannot be decided unilaterally,

I know that.