Where is Meghan?

[StarInTheHeavens]

I haven't seen hide-nor-hair of Meghan since the book release which is uncharacteristic of her. Even with the Montecito floods there was no news. So I'm wondering how this is playing out? Happiness or anger behind closed doors?

@Wheresthecheese I think he failed to prepare her in many ways that's my view I know many other's disagree.

However yes maybe she could have done more research -I think that's a valid point but can be hard to understand cultural nuances and many US citizen seem to be particular hampered by their own culture in understanding this is necessary. (You tube been showing me US citizen in UK and Ireland going on at police/Gardaí about their constitutional rights while abroad).

He made the choice to leave the UK he's a grown man and nearly 40 he made a decision - like most married couple probably a joint decision.

I had IL blaming me for joint decisions - DH and I made - often driven by DH career just because they didn't like them and they dismissed any negatives to means it was inconvenient to their world view. I think the press blames her because it is frequently misogynistic - which has effect of infantizing him.

When something is hard work !

@drivinmecrazy Meghan is Harry's puppet master and his saviour. Life's pretty complex.

At the moment Harry is making a complete arse of himself with his #WorldTherapyTour.

@GloomyDarkness Harry could have prepared her for what she was about to experience but he didn't because those same factors (gross intrusion into your life, past and present) had scared other girlfriends away. Hence when she agreed to marry him he became frantic to give her everything she wanted as a way of diverting away from the negatives.

By the time the reality of royal life dawned on Meghan it was too late. It wasn't a Hollywood celebrity life style with endless money, glamorous events and designer gowns. It was boring, tied up in endless protocols and intrusive.

Not one of us (if young and beautiful) would consider marrying into the RF for a minute. The life looks horrendous, and you don't even get to retire. Even the pope got to retire!

Apropos Harry's lack of being hugged. I don't know what age group posts on here, but I'm the same age as Charles, and its not only the aristocracy that show little physical affection, my father was a burly coal miner and I can only remember him hugging me twice - once was my wedding day. It wasn't a done thing although Mum was a hugger. But us kids knew we were loved. I only saw Dad cry once in his life as well - not manly according to him. It was never the 'thing' to say "love you" either as is now the norm after every meeting or phone call.
For myself I hug family and close friends, but I stand back from people I barely know or just met, preferring a handshake. So I wouldn't castigate Charles too much, displays of affection foes not come easy to some.

I can totally understand that Charles is not a hugger but the manner in which he delivered the news of Diana's death to his sons, patting Harry on the knee etc, and that dreadful funeral march is something I just can't get around. Harry and William were basically in a situation where they could not express grief openly.

He said something very touching, that William would not have allowed him to walk alone, and he in turn would not have wanted William to walk alone. So they both marched behind their mother's coffin, all aristocratic stiff upper lip, while the plebs who never met their mother were wailing away.

And then that walkabout, smiling and thanking people who were openly sobbing while they smiled and thanked them. The whole Diana death spectacle was a shaming indictment on the media, the public and the Royal Family.

The media put unnecessary pressure on the Family, which buckled under it, the public became grief vampires, the Royal Family acted more as an institution than a loving family: Diana was no longer the Queen's daughter in law or the next in line's husband, but she was the mother of those two poor boys. In trying to manage the public's demands, everyone let down the two people who mattered most. It was grotesque.

Harry could have prepared her for what she was about to experience but he didn't because those same factors (gross intrusion into your life, past and present) had scared other girlfriends away. Hence when she agreed to marry him he became frantic to give her everything she wanted as a way of diverting away from the negatives.

I've seen that put forward before and maybe it true - and I know I'd not want that level of intrusion and criticism aimed my way though I think one ex had some grip about being expect to pay for plane tickets accompanying him somewhere.

Even so William managed to give his wife time to decide and get used to things and other young Royals have found spouses who've managed - once again he's a victim with no choice but to do what he did.

To be fair though he does come across as someone who seems to believe he has no self agency - which is bloody odd but does suggest to me Meghan is a good partner for him

@MrsMaxDeWinter Just want to point out that Harry is recounting how he remembers Charles delivering news of his mother’s death. I don’t think we can take it as gospel because of his drug use, trauma and admitted memory issues.

I don’t feel right judging a parent based on that given what I’ve seen in my own family.

But Harry's version is supported by public events. They did go to Church that very day, at which no mention of Diana was made. They did walk behind their mother's coffin, they did do that walkabout. All of which supports the idea that Charles did not treat his sons with the loving sensitivity they needed, and so I can believe that he did not embrace Harry as he told him the news. We also know that the Queen was not a hugger either.

When you hug a grieving child, you give that child the opportunity to break down in the safe space of loving arms. Harry did not get that from his father and grandmother, instilling in him the stiff upper lip ethos. All humans need to grieve loss, and children need to be assured by adults that it is okay to break down, to cry, to mourn and grieve, and not to hide feelings because they are part of a public institution.

I get that the Royals are not touchy feely. But in that moment, I think Harry was let down because he was not able to grieve in the way he needed to.

The media put unnecessary pressure on the Family, which buckled under it, the public became grief vampires, the Royal Family acted more as an institution than a loving family: Diana was no longer the Queen's daughter in law or the next in line's husband, but she was the mother of those two poor boys. In trying to manage the public's demands, everyone let down the two people who mattered most. It was grotesque.

The RF wasn't popular at all at the time - and they did stand firm for a while - to point Blair stepped in - honestly though the whole of the UK went sort of mad - some mass hysteria. I think the media was being driven by the public mood and trying to disguise even the morning of the press they'd been going after Diana - they were trying to deflect blame with pap photographers.

There's posters on here with stories of crossing the channel seeing a newspaper headline slagging of Diana and hours later seeing same paper with new of her death and canonising her - and everyone telling them they'd misremembered.

My family were caught up especially in early days with covid but we were utterly bemused by the Diana stuff and taken back by the funeral coffin walking.

Absolutely this.

Mass hysteria is what it was and you are so correct in pointing out that the media was also trying to whitewash its own guilt over its coverage of Diana. We forget sometimes that even her landmines campaign was received with bitter outrage.

For that unctuous Blair, her death was his moment in the spotlight. The public hysteria was deliberately whipped up by the media. The RF as you rightly say, was not very popular at the time so feeling the pressure.

I felt then and feel now that Harry and William, the people most affected by Diana's death, were sacrificed to meet a number of needs, but their needs as children facing the glare of the world were ignored.

What I can’t get my head round is the boys being expected to go to church the next day
or it may have been the same day, in public, and their mother was never mentioned. Unbelievable.

It was the same day they went to Church @Wheresthecheese Diana died in the early hours of Sunday 31 August.

That is really awful!!

It’s beyond cruel. Just child abuse.

For that unctuous Blair, her death was his moment in the spotlight. The public hysteria was deliberately whipped up by the media.

I liked Blair mostly but he was always focused on the popular direction - at least till the war.

But I'm not sure the media was to blame for the frenzy - there was real anger towards RF and media.

I think because her media presence had been so extensive previous decades - some of that down to Diana herself - huge sections of the population felt they knew her felt some ownership of her and started to act very entitled- even though she was a total stranger to them.

I do think RF got things wrong - but I think they were blindsided not only with sudden death but by the whole reaction which was very odd.

www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/diana-and-the-media-she-used-them-and-they-used-her-until-the-day-she-died/2017/08/24/c98418ca-812d-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html

Diana was the most famous woman in the world — beloved, betrayed, pitied and pursued. Unlike the rest of the British royals, she innately understood the power of the media, and she used it to become a superstar and, later, to wage war with the palace. She believed she could summon the cameras when she wanted flattering stories, and send them away when she’d had enough.

In the end, she was the victim of a taciturn royal family, an insatiable celebrity culture and her own tragic misunderstanding of what it meant to be a fairy-tale princess in the real world.

I think this sums up Diana situation fairly well.

And yet if they had been sitting in Church while the minister spoke about Diana and everyone stared at them you would be equally outraged and claiming it was child abuse. Things were different back then. People kept their thoughts to themselves and acted with decorum around death. Well, until the wailing masses came out with their petrol station bunches of flowers to throw at the coffin as it passed.

They shouldn’t have been at church at all.

Exactly.

Maybe what they needed at that point was routine. Going to church as usual, the same service as usual. There can be comfort in that - especially for believers.

The reality is there was no 'right way' of handling the situation, there is no right way of handling something so awful.

Later, yes, they shouldn't have been taken on the walkabouts, that was due to public and political pressure. As a constitutional monarchy those pressures - rightly in many situations - play a part.

Have to admit I don't get why they didn't let boys stay home with their father - sticking to routines maybe but then they weren't they had to read messages on the flowers after.

abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/prince-william-prince-harry-open-learned-mothers-death/story?id=49362641 - they do talk about Late Queen trying to protect them and clearly torn between GM and Queen. It was apparently a group decision to walk behind the coffin makes me wonder if it's anther example of Groupthink striking.

Why?

If they didn't want to go, then they shouldn't have gone.

But maybe they wanted to go. Maybe they were dazed and didn't know what they wanted, and their grandparents thought familiarity and routine would help.

Prince Philip was 16 when his sister and her entire family died in a plane crash. Maybe he was looking at that experience and thinking about what did/would have helped in that situation

Hadn't Charles gone to Paris asap?

As someone who works in a school, sadly I have had several pupils who have lost parents over the years. No parent has a clue what they are doing in the early days. They are usually in shock themselves. Everyone handles it differently and everyone makes mistakes. I’d never judge anyone. Some people think stick to a normal routine in the early days, other people think throw the routine out the window. Perhaps that’s why the RF decided to go to church that morning. Who really knows what’s best.

Hadn't Charles gone to Paris asap?
Possibly though Prince Philip or someone could have stopped with them.

I do think it was a misstep - but one of the more understandable ones.

Yes, the mother of one of DD's schoolfriends died in the autumn term. She had been diagnosed with cancer, but the end was a lot more sudden than expected. Her class was told, and that she might be out of school for a while.

The friend was back within a week or so. Knowing the school (DD has an EHCP) I am sure they have an individual support plan for her, but naturally that info is private.