Why do Harry and Meghan tell porkies that are so easy to prove wrong?

[YaMuvva]

Starting with the porkie that Archie wasn’t gonna be titled. Anyone who understands the Letters Patent would know that as long as the Queen was alive this was never gonna happen. I said this when watching the Oprah interview and I’m pretty appalled they told such an easily provable lie.

Then Harry said that daddy cut his security off. Anyone who knows about RAVEC knows it is independent of the Royal Family and Charles couldn’t do this if he tried. Same with “Only titled people get security” / this was so easy to prove wrong.

And why are there 2 versions of the proposal story. Did they think we wouldn’t notice? Is one a Hollywood version for their American audience?

The same with the ‘how they met’ story - in their engagement interview they said it was a blind date, to Netflix they met on Instagram.

I also was puzzled at her saying she never wore bright colours and that royal women could never wear the same colour as the Queen. It’s just nonsense. See below pictures.

Why do they do this? My theory is that everything they do now is for an American audience who are used to the reality TV narrative of “Some scenes have been created for entertainment” style TV and just accept their narrative as partly fictional, as long as it’s entertaining?

😂

I hadn't seen that before.

It was actually easy to find - at 2.55(ish) on this video.

(Btw apols if this has already been posted - I'm still catching up on this thread.)

In the version given in their engagement interview, Meghan was roasting a chicken for dinner in the kitchen of Nottingham Cottage when Harry proposed. Another story that’s subsequently changed in the re-telling to be an outdoor picnic with tea lights around the rug.

William's children were direct heirs which is why the rules were amended for them. When Elizabeth had her first two children they would not have been entitled to Prince/Princess titles as they were the Monarch's grandchildren but not through the male line so I assume there would have been an amendment then too.
Not everything is a conspiracy, despite what H and M like to imply for profit.

@Serenster if they really were cocking a snook in engagement interview that might explain it. Does H have form re: puerile sense of humour? Thing about fibs, you tend to forget them.

William's children were direct heirs which is why the rules were amended for them.

Well, exactly. If she had thought she’d change the rules for all of Charles’ grandchildren, she easily could have done at the time, as none had yet been born. But she didn’t. She only changed them for the direct line of succession.

And I think that Diana's fascination with other men, including Household Cavalry, also had an impact!
They should never have married, he shouldn't have been pushed by his family and her family should have seen that it was a potential disaster to allow a smitten teenager to marry him but these things happened. How long will it be dragged out for?

The Fab Four panel is a great example. Meghan couldn't answer the interviewer's question about what she claimed to have been 'working on behind the scenes' and floundered. She then came out with ' women don't need to find a voice they have a voice they need to know how to use it' (I'm paraphrasing slightly)
This is actually a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Yet another example of an unattributed quote that Meghan passes off as her own inestimable wisdom. Pretty much every public speech contains at least one plagiarised quote, it's a great game figuring out where they originate from.

I’ve never watched this until now. She can’t seem to stop talking.

The account of him losing his virginity was just the most jaw droppingly crass thing I have ever read.

I fully understand that there is no such thing as "the UK media" (sic) because it is not a hive mind. That really lacks critical thinking on the part of anyone who imagines such a situation.

This is correct. The little known Letters Patent passed by George VI in October 1948 ensured Charles was a Prince from birth.

Its been said on here already but the Letter Patent before George was born was specifically to avoid the situation where the changes to primogeniture meant the first born daughter and future heir to the throne would be Lady _ of Cambridge and outranked by a younger brother who would be a Prince (under LP 1917) but not the heir.

As they had George first, this didn’t happen obviously, but it would have caused an anomaly if the rules hadn’t changed.

I think that when you are utterly convinced of a particular narrative (e.g one of victimisation), you begin to think that any lies or half-truths that support that narrative are somehow justified because they support a narrative which you believe to be true. At a certain point, although you might intellectually know, if you really thought about it, that the things you're saying aren't true, somehow it doesn't seem to you that you are lying when you say them, because you're so entrenched in this narrative you are convinced is true.

And yes, like others have said, influencer culture where you get so used to putting on a front that isn't the whole truth that you forget you're doing it. I think this is the case with the proposal stories and also the time that they claimed they got married 3 days before their actual wedding. They're so used to dressing everything up to be as beautiful and romantic and symbolic as possible for a social media audience that they forget that in the real world, actual facts like the date of a marriage matter.

Every time she speaks she builds in some self reverential/ self congratulation

'that's who we are.../ something amazing'
'that's what we're about...something amzing'
that's what we want to dedicate oursleves to /something amazing'

Her performance is impressive if she was going for a corporate job interview, but it really lacks authenticity (despite her telling us how autjentic she is).

She's clever enough to have trained herself in good presentation skills, not clever enough to know there's more to really connecting with people than this (despite her telling us how great she is at connecting with people.)

Well he did kinda chuck her under the bus when he took her to his gran's for tea without bothering to explain that she would need to curtsey to said gran and follow various other bits of protocol

He also apparently failed to tell her she would need to learn the national anthem off google and surrender her passport

Also failed to tell her that her kids wouldn't have titles and she wouldn't be living in a ginormous palace like the real life princess she is

So either he did, in fact, regularly chuck her under a bus, or she is not entirely truthful about all matters

Which could it be? Decisions decisions

He also failed to get her mental health support when she was suicidal and instead took her to a public event.

Can't we ignore the derailing accustaions and just talk about what we think about H&M?

Been out and fallen behind, but I agree with this. Don't engage, report if necessary, and carry on chatting among ourselves.

What I do know is if I had to choose between M & C as my SiL I’d choose Catherine a million times over.

And if I had to choose one of the royal ladies to have a drink (or several) with, I'd choose Camilla. I think she'd be great fun.

Yep. He made fun of her age, her appearance and the way she walked down stairs due to her disibility.

One notable thing about Harry's book is how much he likes to make fun of physical characterostics that people have no control over, like their figure, hair or indeed disbaility as in this case.

really revealing of a rather unpleasant aspect of his personality.

Abd, given his ceaseless exhortation of others to #bekind, rather hypocritical really.

I think it’s ok to take issue with someone’s actions as long as it’s about rhe actions not the colour of their skin. I do feel it’s not ok to always think it has to be the latter

Works for me, but sadly there's still a contingent who've never got over the fact that chucking unjustified claims of "racism!!!" at every verse end no longer works

Interesting, too, that the mass deletions haven't been of the usually pretty balanced posters we see a lot; they're mainly new names/namechangers who come on just to fling accusations and derail, and why folk bother responding is a mystery

I think it is clear that some events are colour coordinated.

At Prince Philip's memorial service, the Queen and several other royal women were wearing a shade described as 'forest green'. Said to be Philip's favourite colour, and also a nod to his environmental interests.

And if I had to choose one of the royal ladies to have a drink (or several) with, I'd choose Camilla. I think she'd be great fun.

I think Zara would be fun to hang out with, on a more frivolous note how fabulous did she look at the recent garden party, her best outfit by far I thought.

A very odd episode from "Spare" was when Harry recounts finding Meghan kneeling on Diana's grave, clutching the headstone and asking for guidance. I find that to be most concerning behaviour.

I thought she looked fabulous and absolutely yes to going for a drink or two with Zara!

Not as concerning as rubbing Elizabeth Arden cream on his frost bitten willy while thinking about his mum.

And to be fair, he does seem to find Megan collapsed crying on the floor or ground a lot, in his book. In fact she seems almost constantly to be in a state of tearful collapse over the slightest thing. Flower arrangements. Emails. Texts. Bread rolls. Curtseys. Bridesmaid dresses.

Anyone would think that the portrayal of Meghan as a frail, emotionally fragile quasi-Dickensian orphan maid is somewhat at odds with the portrayal of Meghan as a fearless feminist trailblazer, who single handedly ends systemic racism, changes global advertising campaigns, rocks the royal family to its core and causes Black South Africans to dance joyously in the streets.

It's almost as if one or indeed both of these personae is totally made up.

Surely not?!

I dislike Harry more and more, along with being impressed by the PR skills of the men in grey suits. I can't think of anything he has done since the South Africa documentary that has improved my opinion of him (with the exception of SLH and Invictous both of which he seems at home in and both of which, i think, are things he started within the Royal family).

I feel that Meghan didn't really grasp what she was getting herself into. The reasons for that are probably numerous. If she wasn't attached to the Royal family I don't think she would attract the criticism she does, because she dresses, speaks and behaves in a way that is pretty normal for philanthropic celebrities. She gets criticism because she does it all whilst insisting on the Duchess title.

The comment that first made me go "hmmm" was the one where she claimed no one had asked if she was OK. It was the first indication that she didn't understand the environment she was now living and working in. I think if she ditched the title she would find things easier.