Are Netflix secretly playing Harry and Meghan?

[username8888]

H&M think they are dictating the Netflix narrative, but I wonder if Netflix are actually playing a longer game? This was billed as their story, but they are so tone deaf and are exposing themselves to ridicule with their ham fisted attempts to justify their behaviour. It's so full of ridiculous unsubstantiated statements and generalisations with no evidence to back it up. It's using stock photographs of photographers that have nothing to do with them. Why not show real photographers? A ridiculous car chase with a lone photographer on a moped provoking panic and faux fear in the couple is laughable. And as for Harry's face as Meghan takes the piss out of the queen? This was definitely seen by the editors who chose to leave it in.

Will Netflix get a double helping from this series with the candy-floss fluff that's the first airing, with a second being the dissection of this sad and deluded pair?

I really don't see the point in mean posts like these. You don't know these people. At the very least, they come across to me as well-intentioned. Harry is known to have had a really rocky childhood, privileges notwithstanding, and is clearly trying to protect his family from going through anything similar. That's not my idea of lacking integrity.

I don't think selling every last detail of his life will give his kids the privacy and relative anonymity that he presumably thinks will be to their benefit.

I just think that putting out a statement (if that) and retreating would have protected them all more.

Of course opinions (not just recollections) vary but I can’t help but think this series and perhaps the book may not turn out to be the positive spotlight on their lives that they’d hoped for.

I don't think selling every last detail of his life will give his kids the privacy and relative anonymity that he presumably thinks will be to their benefit.

Hardly every last detail. He's grown up in the public eye and now he's speaking out about some aspects of that and apparently ruffling some establishment feathers. Maybe some positive changes will come from it eventually, who knows. In the meantime he's earned some money to provide for his family and given their perspective on the past few years. Good for him.

But I don't blame Meghan and I don't give a fig that they're suffering a life away from the RF that they both disdain and a life away from England (not UK) which Harry says he hates. And I hardly think they're on their uppers and fretting if they have enough food for the kids.
So I honestly don't care if they're happy or not because it's in their hands and not mine.

And call their daughter after the head of this?

Crikey, rereading that I could do with varying my vocabulary a bit 😄

Well historic england say his portrait is at Althorp so it seems likely it is the same Spencers. Not sure why they'd have the portrait otherwise.

...Or after a beloved granny.

You don't have to be an art historian to see the hierarchy being hinted at in the painting. The heir at the top, the dad in the middle, then the beloved horse and the slave uncomfortably squeezed in just above the dog. I'm not sure I would want Spencer family money if I were Harry.

@ImaginaryDragon - I do not see you as race baiting.

I do see other posters and have reported.

@Justasec321

Thank you so much for clarifying. It all got a little confusing there. Thank you also for call out the race baiting.

@ancientgran

how did owning a slave bring the Spencer family their wealth? That was where this started, as the money from his mother being dirty slave trade money that had made the Spencer family their wealth.

As far as I can find their wealth was from sheep farming back just before Tudor times.

There are many families that had sugar plantations which made money using slaves and there was the for example the Greatheed family who made there money from slaves. Greatheed was MP for Coventry. Spencer MP for Warwick etc

The royal family were in favour of salves, had dealings with slavery, thats without doubt, there is much material about George III etc

I'm not sure I would want Spencer family money if I were Harry.

so would the same be said if Harry was to inherit from the Queen?

I don't know anything about their money but I replied to two comments, one saying he wasn't likely a slave and I posted the historic england quote. One querying if it was the same Spencers and again I pointed out that historic England say the portrait is at Althorp.

Presumably their wealth could come from both sources, or even more sources for all I know. It seems pretty obvious they had some connection to owning slaves being as they owned one.

Absolutely.

Presumably their wealth could come from both sources, or even more sources for all I know

presumably you can show me the source of this information? if the spencer family made their money from the slave trade let’s have the source and see the evidence

I’ve looked and can’t find it, I can find another spencer family with links to slave trade and making their money this way - thus my question, which you highlighted

The more I watch these episodes, the more it feels like a documentary on Meghan Markles life. Like a biopic, and Harry is in it purely because someone's husband would be in it (regardless of who he is).

But he is quite happy to profit off that "hierarchy" by using Prince, Duke and questioning why their children don't have titles?

Without that hierarchy do you seriously think Netflix would be throwing 100mill at them?

Maybe the Cartier watch of Diana's that his wife is so fond of wearing was bought with Spencer money?

He seems to have no problem with that.

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz · Today 22:07
The more I watch these episodes, the more it feels like a documentary on Meghan Markles life. Like a biopic, and Harry is in it purely because someone's husband would be in it (regardless of who he is).
....................
I thought Harry's life was well portrayed, both were, from an early age until now. I like the man that he has become.

I've already said I don't know anything about where their money comes from so not sure why you are quoting me. All I did was quote information about the poor man who was enslaved and where his portrait hangs. If you want to investigate their wealth then you crack on, if you want to question someone who has said their wealth came from slavery then crack on. Leave me out of it because as I said I don't know but I do know what historic england have said about the portrait of the slave.

I hope that clarifies it.

It doesn't matter how many dislikes the trailors get. For them any criticism is better than no attention. It's already win-win.

Yes exactly.

@ancientgran. it was you that stated the wealth presumably came from the slave trade, if you want to quote stuff like that fine, but don't be surprised when someone comes and long and asks you to back up what your stating

I didn't say it presumambly came from the slave trade. It was said their wealth came from sheep, it was said it came from the slave trade. I said, and I quote,
Presumably their wealth could come from both sources and it could. Just because you found a source that said they made money from sheep does not mean they couldn't have made money from slavery and vice versa. I repeat I do not know where their money came from, the only reason I posted was someone question if the slave in the portrait was a slave and I quoted what I saw on Historic England. He was clearly a slave, he was clearly owned by the Spencers. They might not have made money from him, he might be their only connection to slavery but I think Historic England are quite a reliable source so I quoted the information.

Not sure what your issue is as I wasn't the one who said they made money from slavery so either go back and find out who did or leave it.