Anyone else think Kate is coming across as a bit precious and over-sensitive? Baby brain, lip gloss etc.

[SallyWD]

I'll start by saying I know there are 2 sides to every story. Also, I'm not a Megan fan. I have no idea what she's like. She might be awful. I neither like her, nor dislike her. I feel the same way about Kate.

But anyway, in light of the stories that Harry is telling, does anyone else feel that Kate (and William) comes across as rather precious and over sensitive?

First of all there's the baby brain incident. Apparently Kate forgot something or made a mistake and Megan responded by saying "Oh don't worry, it's probably the baby brain". Kate then feels insulted by this remark and says something along the lines of "You don't me well enough to comment on my hormones". William joins in by pointing his finger at Megan and saying "It's rude Megan, we don't do that here." I mean seriously?? I think the baby brain remark was completely benign. I'm sure Megan was trying to reassure Kate not to worry about her mistake. Just after having my baby I paid for my shopping and walked out leaving it in the shop. The cashier had to call me back and I apologised. She also said "Don't worry, it's the baby brain". I wasn't at all offended. I was relieved she understood! I certainly didn't think "How dare a stranger comment on my hormones". The irony of William telling Megan off for rudeness whilst pointing his finger at her. I find it far more rude to point in someone's face than to mention baby brain. If I was Megan and had received that reaction to my innocent remark I would have felt humiliated and very upset.

Then there's the lipgloss incident. Megan asked to borrow Kate's lipgloss. Kate lends it to her then gets upset that she dabs it with her finger. I understand some people don't want to share lip gloss but Kate could have said no. I don't understand what's so upsetting about Megan using her finger? If I lent someone my lip gloss I'd insist they used their finger and not their mouth. Apparently the mouth harbours more germs than your average toilet.

Then there's the report that William and Kate were uncomfortable being hugged by Megan. There are literally hundreds of photos of William and Kate hugging random strangers on the internet! Yet when Megan makes this faux pas it's offensive to them.

It seemed like William and Kate expected to be treated with great formality by Megan - as if she was one of their subjects. It also seems that Megan couldn't do anything right! Megan on the other hand perhaps expected a little more intimacy given that they were her partner's family. It doesn't sound like they did much to make her feel comfortable and welcome in to the family. Does anyone agree/disagree?

She tried. The bridesmaids dresses were a state. She told Meghan they all need to be redone, not just Charlotte's but Meghan refused to take her advice & turned it against her.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:

"@DownNative Again you've embarrassed yourself by showing you cannot understand nuance, plain English, and engage in critical thinking. I don't have to go into your distortions, your contortions, your misrepresentations and your lies right now, however, off the bat;"

On the contrary, you've continued to distort, misrepresent and lie yourself as demonstrated previously.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:

"People from cultures like Meghan's, and mine, often have a vow ceremony before the OFFICIAL one. We call it GETTING MARRIED. We don't sign papers, but it is common to have to wedding ceremonies, and the first (non-legal) one be considered the real marriage."

Strawman Argument Fallacy.

That's all well and good, but this is you putting words in Meghan's mouth. Look, Meghan's clearly an intelligent and eloquent woman. If she meant to say what you're trying to claim, Meghan would have had NO problem expressing exactly that.

The plain meaning of her words to Oprah is very clear and dancing on the head of a pin as you're doing is not necessary.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:

"Unfortunately you clearly don't understand culture. Your ignorance, even when corrected, can only be assumed as willful."

This is, therefore, NOT a cultural issue at all. It's a matter of looking at the actual words Meghan used and the plain meaning of her words. Nothing more. She didn't come close to saying anything like what you're trying to do.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:

"The fact is the Archbishop did not deny that a vow ceremony was held, unlike what you twisted it to mean because he said it wasn't legal, you therefore seem to think the ceremony wasn't valid to them. She did, in affect, get 'married'. That's what we call it when we exchange vows, even if it's not legal.
Oops."

You have obviously blatantly fallen in to the Appeal To Ignorance Fallacy because the Archbishop of Canterbury did NOT come close to confirming anything like you're twisting yourself into knots to say. Welby did NOT confirm an informal marriage vow of no legal standing took place!

Not a bit. All he said was he had a MEETING with Harry and Meghan three days before the wedding ceremony. And he also said it would remain CONFIDENTIAL no matter who he was talking to.

I suggest it is YOU who us trying to twist his words into supporting your mental gymnastics of an informal cultural vow ceremony beforehand.

Oops.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"Meghan and other royals, like the Prime Minister and President DO...NOT hold the passport in their hands. That, is pre-arranged. Your ignorance of this procedure is as astounding as your xenophobia regarding cultures having two marriage ceremonies."

This is just desperate meaningless rhetoric with no substance in reality.

No, all immigration rules apply to the Royals and they each present their own passports themselves in a fast tracked manner. It's a security protocol, you see. Except for the reigning Monarch.

Here:

"All immigration rules apply
Even royalty need passports. Little Prince George had to get a baby passport for his trip to Australia, which cost the royals $65. And the royal party has to adhere to customs and immigration rules but is usually fast-tracked through this process."

Less well known is that the late Queen had to confirm her identity when flying into or outwith the UK:

"Queen Elizabeth is the only royal who doesn’t need a passport as passports are issued in the name of Her Majesty — however, she is forced to go through an identity check every time she flies in and out of Britain, giving her full name, age, address, nationality, gender and place of birth to immigration officials."

So, I'm afraid your accusation of myself being ignorant as well as xenophobic is unwarranted, baseless and should be retracted. You resorted to an Ad Hominem Fallacy aka personal attack which people do when they're running out of road in an argument. Makes you look bad.

Oops.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:

"The Letters Patent was changed by the Queen however on her death, it meant that Archie and Lilibet would also be eligible. www.geo.tv/latest/443134-lilibet-and-archies-royal-status-described-in-letters-patent
However, Meghan and Harry were told that Charles was going to CHANGE IT, so they wouldn't be. THAT, is what Meghan was referring to. www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a36777656/prince-charles-wont-allow-archie-to-be-a-prince/"

As already explained, the late Queen changed the Letters Patent because the UK and fifteen other Commonwealth nations agreed to change the Royal Rule Of Succession.

Male Royal Primogeniture was out and Absolute Primogeniture was in. It simply reflected a change in line of succession. Irrelevant to any children Harry has for that reason. You can ignore that if you wish. Makes no odds.

As for Charles, your article is built on an anonymous "source" allegedly close to Harry and Meghan. Meaningless.

Furthermore, your article states that if its true, its NOT personal towards the Sussexes OR part of any feud with them. It states, if true, its down to a desire to slim down the Monarchy similar to Norway's. Harry has always known his father wants to radically slim down the Royal Family in accordance with the opinion of the British People.

And FINALLY, another anonymous "source" allegedly close to Charles says they won't engage in speculation or rumours coming from the USA. Also meaningless.

In short, your article doesn't support what you're saying by any means. You've built your contorted argument on weak foundations!

And the King definitely hasn't changed the Letters Patent either. Consider Harry and Meghan have left the Royal Family as well as Harry saying they won't be back as Working Royals....perhaps Parliament should introduce an Act to also strip Harry of the title of Prince?

Remember, Parliament is Supreme. Not the Monarch.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:

"Now enough of the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and xenophobia."

Take your own advice! It's been shown you continued to distort and misrepresent the truth. You also need to cease the Ad Hominem and Strawman Argument Fallacies.

Furthermore, I note you've blatantly ignored your clear lie the Duchy funds Royal Security. You know it doesn't as HM Treasury funds this whilst RAVEC decides who's eligible.

Good!

Rubbish. Harry’s a grown man and needs to take responsibility for his own actions and decisions.

I don’t accept that Harry’s gross betrayal of his family was inevitable because his mother died.

He would still have been the spare, and have had an ambitious wife who would rather be living as an A-lister wannabe in the US than visiting schools and cutting ribbons in the UK.

Agreed.

There's nothing at all inevitable about Harry doing what he's doing because his mother died. He needs to take a leaf out of his brother's book!

Hell, he needs to take a leaf out of three of my relatives' book as their father was brutally murdered by Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA. Absolutely none of them behave in the way he does and all take responsibility for their actions as adults too. None of them wish to be perceived as or act like eternal victims either. It would have been so easy for them to fall apart - it was that brutal. Blatant murder is a different kettle fish to an accidental car crash. To top it off, PSF/PIRA tried to murder us two months after.

Charles having a mistress had nothing do with Diana's death. Diana died because she didn't wear a seatbelt and her driver was under the influence whilst driving.....3 times the French legal limit, IIRC. But those facts do not suit a victim narrative.

Harry wants the narrative to be all about himself asca victim of everyone and taking no responsibility. At 38, he should be dealing with it more resppnsibly. I can't respect this.

Not when I respect my relatives For dealing with their trauma.

Let’s set the record straight here:

Harry only made it to Sandhurst because allowances were made for him at Eton, then his A levels faked.
Whilst on “tours” he had personal protection still.
He was allowed to dodge army drug tests.

His entire military ‘career’ only happened because of the influence and careful management of the Royal Family.

He is in fact less worthy of respect than the Lardashians who were savvy enough to become self-made multimillionaires.

Kardashians obviously; that was an unfortunate typo. 🤭

Lardashians 😂😂

DownNative plenty of people of these threads will have grown up with parents whose own parents were murdered in areas of conflict when the former were young, myself included. What that has to do with Harry goodness knows. It's clear that the 'not talking' - which is a common theme among the most affected among war generation - doesn't necessarily means that scars were/ are not there, and shadows aren't passed down. But we live in different times now, with much more understanding of how to heal scars. You heralding your relatives' way of dealing with grief is not comparable with Harry and his messed up family, with everything out in the spotlight or else hushed up. And I can say that only because of the equally appalling things which happened to close relatives of my own, or rather my father's. A different era and different circumstances altogether. I have a huge amount of sympathy for Harry, a very different take from you.

Well Harry was certainly smart enough to find a sudden need to wizz off back to London when the testers showed up.

Of course, a lot of people have experienced trauma. The point I was making is that many, many of them do NOT wallow in a "Woe is me" victim mentality by any means.

Unlike Harry who wants to continually portray himself as an eternal victim. He really needs to do what his brother has done, my relatives and many others.

If not, it WILL eventually destroy him.

So, yes, I have respect for William, my relatives and many unnamed millions who've overcome the adversity of their trauma.

But hardly any left for Harry now after all these years of sympathising with him. There is a limit and nobody can be excused forever.

Not you, me or Prince Harry.

I assure you my family never kept it a secret and never talked. We did. The Royals did too and it helped William especially.

By the way, my relatives DID experience massive press intrusion at the time. A TV programme was also made. Remember, we're people who have no experience of this world compared to Harry. So you're wrong there.

Harry, on the other hand, spent years reading conspiracy theories about his mother's death. At one point, he refers to her death as "her disappearance" which is revealing.

If William can deal with his trauma responsibly, I've no doubt Harry could.

I'm afraid that I don't really understand a number of your sentences and points.

My father regarded himself as lucky incidentally, in the sense of being alive. So definitely no sense of victimhood there. He also didn't go round with an attitude of telling others how they should process their own trauma, as you seem to do, even though you weren't a victim yourself.

He may have fought, as have many others, but he wouldn’t be interviewed on all the TV shows if he didn’t have the RF story to tell / sell.

Your reading is clearly poor, especially as you seem to think I wasn't a victim when I'd clearly stated PSF/PIRA tried to murder us two months later. They obviously failed.

If you don't think that any sympathy for Harry should be running out now, that's fine. Many disagree.

It's not practical to eternally have a "there, there" attitude to people. Many, many have dealt with their problems.

Harry, with all his privileges and advantages, hasn't. Read the room also comes to mind.

This seems to be becoming more about you than about Harry.

My ability to read is just fine. Your post isn't well written. What does this mean for example: I assure you my family never kept it a secret and never talked. We did. The Royals did too and it helped William especially.

Anyhow, this thread is about Harry not about your family or mine and our comparable experience has created two polarised outlooks, so actually adds nothing.

Or his private detectives were smart enough to whisk him out of there

The private detectives would have probably got the blame!

I prefer the typo actually!

Bit in bold means we talked about it and so did the Royals - William found it helpful. That's clear enough to anyone of a reasonable competency.

Harry, unfortunately, indulged in reading conspiracy theories about his mother's death. That WILL hinder any healing process severely.

No, people's experiences will and does inform their reactions to Harry's eternal victim mentality. And it's unhelpful plus unhealthy to keep giving him a pass on his behaviour based on his mother's accidental death.

Harry is a hugely overprivileged rich boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth and should really disappear from public view now to sort himself out PROPERLY.

It never looks good for any Royal, famous or rich person to constantly bang the "poor me" victim drum.....🤷‍♂️

That may be what you intended to say in which case I'm not sure why you typed the opposite. Not sure you should be talking about reasonable competency on the literacy front; your post is extremely poorly written.

Your family's experience has nothing to do with Harry. It certainly seems to have given you a sense of entitlement about how grief and trauma has to be handled which feels quite an impertinence to me (and nothing to do with Harry's status - it's impertinent generally).

Harry isn't the only person who examined non accidental explanations for his mother's death. Not in the least surprising, in the circumstances.

What astonishes me about all the gallons of ink spilled on the subject of the royals is the way everyone seems to think they know them.

"William coped well and maturely", "William is a bully", "Harry is immature and spoiled", "Harry is down-to-earth" - no matter whether they are positive or negative, the opinions are unfailingly aired with the certainty of people who are on first-name terms with the royal family.

These people are complete strangers, 'known' only through the filter of full-time PR officials, spin doctors, and journalists. Most of the time no definite source for a story is given - just "palace insiders say". Or there will be a quack 'expert' wheeled out to declare what a royal's personality must be like from their handwriting or something equally bogus. The result is that members of the public can all pick and choose what to believe in the same way they decide on their favourite TV characters. Perceive an attribute in one of the royals that feel likeable/repulsive to you? It's a brief step from there to imagining that they must think and feel exactly like you/be your polar opposite. It's all theatre and fantasy, and while it happens with all celebrities to an extent, it is weirdly common with royals.

At no point did I say the opposite to what I intended.

But I think we've established by now that you think it's fine to eternally give Harry a pass for failing to deal with his trauma in relation to his mother. Hence your skirting around it.

Whoever said Harry was the only one who read conspiracy theories online?! Not I! I assume you know what a Strawman Argument Fallacy is.....?

The point is Harry needed to come to terms with his mother's death and conspiracy theories will never do just that. We had an enquiry into the circumstances in the UK and France, IIRC. That dealt with it all.

Indulging in conspiracy theories doesn't lead to healing.

Time NOW for the hugely overprivileged rich boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth to disappear from public view now to sort himself out PROPERLY. Not do another media circuit.

Time also for people to give William a LOT of respect for managing to deal with the trauma of his mother's death in a very responsible manner.

The “Royal Family” are their public personae. The UK is a constitutional monarchy - if the Royal Family is brought into disrepute, then so is the constitution for propping up a bunch of duds at vast expense. By openly declaring his family to be emotionally stunted, self-serving, extremely immature, petty and criminal (eg illegal drug taking, child sexual abuse, etc), Harry is not doing any harm whatsoever to the press he despises, he’s just providing it with hugely profitable clickbait. He is, however, doing massive harm to his own family and the reputation of the British constitution. I’m sure it’s all very noble trying to destroy the monarchy from the inside, but it is self-destructive and it’s not going to do Harry any emotional good to isolate himself from his own family. His hated media would be just as happy to trash his and his family’s reputation if they were just another run of the mill bunch of over-privileged rich people living in a republic as it would be to trash them as a Royal Family.

Wonderful typo ...

Well said.It ends when KC and PW says enough is enough and the monarchy ended effectively with the blameless Queen and all this trivial nonsense dissappears to where it belongs on the back pages of papers and obscure gossip sites. The nation and its people can then focus on stuff that really matters to the people. In this scenario we all win and they get to be freed to live their hugely privileged and wealthy lives like the rest of their ilk becoming like some obscure French count in their chateau. Harry in his own way having opened the door and shown them the way out. This isn't going away , the Andrew gagging order ends in February and then the Coronation which will be the focus of some discontent in some quarters as its 2023 not 1953.

Interestingly, Meghan wrote about Kate in her blog, long before she met Harry.

Meghan Markle Once Blogged About Kate Middleton Before Becoming Royal

In 2014, the now-Duchess penned an entry about princesses, where she revealed her former She-Ra obsession, interviewed Princess Alia Al-Senussi of Libya, and discussed how the classic dream of becoming royalty continues into adulthood.

"Grown women seem to retain this childhood fantasy," Markle wrote, according to People. "Just look at the pomp and circumstance surrounding the royal wedding and endless conversation about Princess Kate."

Markle eventually shut down The Tig in April 2017, about a year after she tied the knot to Prince Harry at Windsor Castle.

When Meghan met Kate, she had already written about her on her blog, it's no surprise Kate was cautious, she was smart to be.