Archbishop of Canterbury get Harry to attend Coronation

[AtticusFrost]

The Mail on Sunday are claiming that Charles has asked the Archbishop to talk to Harry to get him to attend the Coronation. But William is against this as he fears the Sussex's will detract from the Coronation.

"Harry could be guaranteed a high-profile seating position in the Abbey or an informal assurance that he will be able to keep his titles as an inducement to attend. However, William fears that unless Harry’s visit is tightly scripted, he could steal the limelight by, for example, going on a walkabout in a deprived London borough with Meghan."

Ok, then. Can you answer my last question? I’m not sure who I’m supposed to have been piling on.

Please read my reply - I have attached it - I apologised as I misunderstood your question. I believe I have answered initial questions

I saw it, it’s the bit about piling onto two initials on another thread that I’m confused about. Who are they and what thread?

Ok.
I won't link it - as it doesn't apply to you or your post but it is recent and easy to find.

Right, I’m going to make this my last comment here as this is getting weird. I’m glad it has nothing to do with me or my comment, but not sure why it was mentioned.

Ok . My last response too on this thread

Your Post

Looks like you are still here as well and most of us are on other threads besides the M&H ones.

I miss read this and responded with my reply with initials.

I quickly apologised as I had misread your above post in bold

There is no reason for me to link the thread I referred to as it was an error on my part to reference it for which I have apologised for.

Hope that is clearer now but I agree let's end this one here as I can't explain it any better.

Takes 2 to tango. Harry can equally pick up the phone and chooses not to. It was him lobbed hand grenades at his family and if Charles is dysfunctional then the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Except she did on the Oprah interview

"Obviously now people are very aware of my race because they made it such an issue when I went to the UK, but before that, most people didn't treat me like a 'Black woman.'"

Does it actually matter when he was introduced? She was subjected to very real and very vile racism following this, which was long before she met Harry (the point of my post) in America, when she says it only occurred in the UK. Branding an entire country racist, when we have very relaxed attitudes to race for the most part.

It matters because of suggestions that she was somehow trying to deny or hide her African American heritage, which has been suggested by some. That was what I was attempting to address.

If you're going to quote, do include it all. She said that some posts (not posters) were deranged, but that over 90% was not. Also she did not attribute the deranged posts to any particular viewpoint.

Here is the quote - which seems quite clear to me.

"People have extraordinarily strong and vitriolic views, way more powerful than I would expect. They are so strongly anti-Meghan we’ve had to do what we did with Madeleine McCann and cobble it into one topic because it seems slightly deranged. Ninety per cent of our content is incredibly supportive, but attention is drawn to the controversial topics, which are very active because people have very strong feelings.”

Apologies - I'd forgotten that she said it was a particular sentiment

But it remains the case that the vast majority is reasonable

I still find that quotation curious on two grounds
a) the topic has existed since 2011, so wasn't created for this (which isn't quite what she said, but is the obvious inference), and
b) there was never a McCann topic

So is Justine really hanging out on the boards? Or relying on someone else's assessment? (In general, the longer the sourcing chain, the less reliable the conclusion)

a) the topic has existed since 2011, so wasn't created for this (which isn't quite what she said, but is the obvious inference), and
b) there was never a McCann topic

Good points. Although she is right in one sense - for quite a while, criticism of H&M was censored on MN, in much the same way as discussion of the McCanns.

My personal opinion on the latter: The McCann's story didn't pass the sniff test. Many people picked up on the fact that they were being dishonest about something. I don't think they were involved in their daughter's disappearance, but I do think they lied about the 'regular checks' on the sleeping children - to protect their reputations. Ultimately, this compromised the investigation because it meant the police weren't given an accurate timeframe to work with.

I have never seen her saying Britain is racist. I’ve seen Harry say some of the British media was racist. Meghan has never branded ‘an entire country’ racist.

But I have seen commenters insist that she has done so.

Why do people persist in wanting to believe something was said that was not said?

Why do people want to take offence at something that was not said?

As I recall it, in the Oprah interview, they both mentioned the remark about the possible colour of any babies and Harry said that the press was toxic. He most likely said that the British Press was/are toxic. I can't remember if he used the word British.

The press picks up on things. It was fairly useful to the press at the time to deflect the remarks so some newspapers will have suggested that M and H were implying that Britain was racist as in whites discriminating against blacks. I think it suited Madame Oprah too. So it has stuck. Perhaps Harry enjoyed the hoohar it caused. Perhaps he enjoyed it when a journalist shouted to ask his brother if the RF are racist.
Harry and Meghan were obfuscating and disingenuous in that interview. He allowed suspicion to fall on all members of the RF about 'the remark'. That was sneaky and juvenile.
Why do people want to take offence at something that was not said? Some people never ever listen properly. Everyone has his/her own agenda. Some people are going to spend their whole trouble-making lives being offended because they are just total prats.

I don't believe that the British public want Harry or Meghan at the coronation.

Charles in my view massively undermines the monarchy by inviting them. He seems to be very weak as a King, at a time when the monarchy is still reeling from the loss of the Queen.

I think the presence of H&M will devalue the UK internationally and inevitably cause a huge circus and distraction from the Coronation.

'After everything they have said why on earth would H and M want to be there?'

For the publicity, for the attention. They thrive on it. The RF is their only relevance for their US sponsors, so they need to attempt to stay relevant.

It'd be funny behind the scenes, lots of stilted talk about the weather and safe subjects then as soon as they've they've gone to report to Netflix the rf would all be 'thank fuck for that!'

Feel sorry for Charles, no one likes family estrangement but this ridiculous pair have caused so much hurt to the loyal members of the rf he really does need to keep them out of the public eye and away from those they've hurt as much as poss. 5th row at the coronation with the Yorks, tea and sarnies after the main do then send them on their tawdry way.

It'd be a good idea to communicate through a mediator or with a mediator but a trained one. Mediation doesn't look for apologies but understanding that one side felt hurt/betrayed/rejected. I don't think it should be linked to the coronation. Mediation with family therapists would be idea but I wonder if this might be beyond the scope of an arch bishop. He can't make things worse though!

I think it could work out fine if they literally turned up for the event and were expected to leave straight after. It is a very formal, televised event. There isn't any scope for squabbling or snooping, apart from paranoid fantasies invented for money later on. They will feel massively snubbed by being given as much access as a TV journalist but they do produce low quality journalism so it's fair.

100%

I agree with this. I’m wondering if he’s feeling caught between a rock and a hard place though. If he doesn’t invite them then then he will be criticised for not maintaining a relationship with his son and proving himself to be the cold, distant father Harry claims him to be. If he does they he’s weak and putting up with betrayal and not adhering to the country’s wishes. He can’t win really.

I think Charles should fly over. I know there'd be security costs, but nobody would grudge them I don't think, especially if he could fix their relationship ebfore the coronation. Dont think h&m should go but I hope h and charles will talk. when it gets to the point where they're only communicating through lawyers then it takes real vulnerability to step forward and risk the rejection.