Porkies, Perfidies & Pomposity - Harry and Meghan thread 2

[YaMuvva]

I do not take credit for the title

First thread here

Shall we continue the discussion? I will not be engaging with the posters spouting damaging and unfounded gossip

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5084429-why-do-harry-and-meghan-tell-porkies-that-are-so-easy-to-prove-wrong?page=1

No, it turned out she'd had Archie earlier the same day, but I remembering saying at the time "the media will make them pay for that"

FWIW my own view was that they didn't need to say anything at all if they preferred not to, but to lie was perhaps foolish, even if watching all the silly commentary knowing the baby was already here gave them a few laughs

I also believe that Meghan is far less at fault than Harry. But the big lie I can never get past is one of hers . . . the wedding one.

I think you have to be a) old and b) know about how the Church of England works to appreciate how bad it was.

Meghan is a divorcee. The late Queen was very anti divorce and very straight laced. Princess Anne had to be married for the second time in Scotland because marriage of divorcees in church was not permitted in England. The Queen did not attend Charles and Camilla's actual wedding at the register office and although she attended the blessing and gave a warm speech at the reception, reportedly Camilla was furious because the Queen did not speak one word to her the entire day. The Queen organised a birthday party for Princess Margaret but refused to invite Roddy Llewellyn due to her disapproval of their relationship.

I appreciate none of this puts the late Queen in the greatest of lights, but these were not unusual views for her generation and social class. And of course the Queen's own uncle had to abdicate in order to marry a divorcee. It would have been a big step for the Queen to have agreed to Harry being married both in Church, at Windsor, and by the Archbishop of Canterbury (it would have helped that Harry was not the divorced party of course.)

I got married in a church for the second time in the late 1990s. It was very unusual to be able to do this - our vicar casually mentioned that we were lucky living where we did as he was the only vicar in the area who would marry divorcees. I doubt it was still as big an issue countrywide in 2016 but the Archbishop would still have given the matter a lot of thought, and would have had to believe that the divorcee he was marrying was not someone who took marriage lightly.

To have Meghan come out and say that he had actually married them in their garden three days before was dreadful. There are rules and laws concerning marriage and when/where it takes place. Meghan was claiming that the highest-ranking priest in the land married two people in their back garden with no witnesses and no paperwork, in other words that he broke the law. He was forced to issue a statement denying it. Had he been a lower ranking priest, a common-or-garden vicar, he would almost certainly have been hauled up in front of his boss and asked to explain himself. Luckily for him, his boss was HM Queen! Their next conversation probably involved her apologising to him.

As someone has mentioned upthread, the wedding rehearsal does feel lovely and just about everyone comments that they wish they were getting married at that point and stuff the big day and all the guests. But Meghan made it very clear that they were actually married before the wedding day. Huge lie and so unkind to the Archbishop who I expect had done a lot to try to make them happy and give them the perfect day.

I’ll do a longer post about this but As an amateur historian I’m deeply offended at that suggestion that something 200 years old and is STILL in existence is described as ‘ancient’. How deeply disappointing his ghost writer is

I'd love to know what his ghost writer really thought of him.

I get that they didn’t want to have the photo outside the hospital and I completely agree with that. What I don’t understand is why they felt the need to lie about when Archie was actually born. What did they hope to gain by that ? Surely it would have been better to say something like “baby boy safely arrived but we will not be available for photos for a few days as mother and baby need to rest”. Dissembling definitely made it seem like they were sticking two fingers up not only at the press, but at the public too. That was when I started to think “hmmm”

'the kinds of things Willy and I wouldn’t dream of including.'

So he's essentially saying William and he worked hard behind the scenes. Wonder what people who claim William does nothing make of that.

His apparent swipe at Princess Anne doesn't make much sense either - is he saying visiting a horse farm isn't important? Bet it's important to the people who work there. But of course, only Harry does worthwhile things......

Perhaps Princess Anne feels it necessary to detail things in the court circular to try and avoid criticism from certain quarters that the rf are lazy? (Actually, she probs doesn't give a rats.)

@BalloonSlayer re the getting married in the garden, it was the way she said it, almost gloating and a 2 finger salute to the public who watched the wedding .

re the getting married in the garden, it was the way she said it, almost gloating and a 2 finger salute to the public who watched the wedding .

Entirely agree.

The smirking, the reference to it being a spectacle for the masses and no acknowledgement or gratitude that the gawping unwashed were the ones who'd stumped up millions for the 'official' knees-up.

Gobsmacking.

His apparent swipe at Princess Anne doesn't make much sense either - is he saying visiting a horse farm isn't important? Bet it's important to the people who work there. But of course, only Harry does worthwhile things......
Harry would never call it a 'horse farm'. Did he actually read his own book before it was published

They were offered a low key wedding.
They rejected it. They wanted "a spectacle for the masses" and a very expensive double reception courtesy of Charles.

So I’ve met Princess Anne twice / both at ‘ribbon cutting’ events. But VERY important ribbon cutting events. One was re-opening a new bridge, the old bridge had collapsed in flood and had killed a policeman. The new bridge was named after the policeman. She didn’t just cut the ribbon - she spoke to the policeman’s family (and was so lovely), met the engineers and builders involved, met the local Mayor - it was a very important event for the local community. It’s quite offensive to not call this work just because she isn’t pinning a medal on someone

Yes she said about the spectacle being for the rest of the world. So rude and offensive to people who took time and spent money celebrating their wedding, holding street parties and sleeping in tents to catch a glimpse of her. Unforgivably rude

I would think that those members of Riding for the Disabled would be very upset at being described as a "Horse Farm" as would those involved with the equestrian charity World Horse Welfare. Princess Anne has been involved with both charities for many years as Patron/President.

@YaMuvva @CathyorClaire Im getting cross thinking about it again, how bloody dare she mock (fucking spectacle for the masses) the people of a country that she doesn't hale from, who turned out or took time to watch her extremely expensive wedding that she didn't pay for.

My absolute fave (apologies if it’s already been mentioned). On tour in South Africa with baby Archie, the bedroom he was sleeping in had a plug in heater that someone noticed smelled of smoke, it was unplugged and removed. This was then spun as - my baby nearly died in a fire and they made me go out and perform duties as if nothing had happened.

Note: Archie wasn’t even in the room when the faulty heater was discovered.

I also love the “dancing in the streets when you married a Prince” lie, I mean - just why?

Harry would never call it a 'horse farm'.

He is after all a proud stallion 🐴

Yes the ‘spectacle’ for the world was so dismissive and rude, like they were forced to do it against their will. It shows contempt to anyone that celebrated for them - and they did have plenty of people watching and cheering them on here in the UK.

It’s a small thing but during the Oprah interview Meghan said “I forget if it was the George V or VI convention” (referring to letters patent 1917) - this feels really disrespectful, she has married into a famous family and should know the difference, it’s the Queen’s father and grandfather!

She says in the next breath “when Harry’s dad becomes king” and I agree with PP what she uses such terms to both show the closeness of the relationship and also disrespect them by not using their titles.

I saw a clip of Anne from years ago being asked how her mother was and she responded along the lines of “Her Majesty The Queen? She’s doing very well thank you”. Clearly putting the interviewer in their place.

This.

I get that Meghan has no understanding of UK law, but to implicate the AoC like that was appalling. Her (and Harry) being married in St George's Chapel is a massive deal and she brushed it away like it was nothing.

She also thumbed her nose at the UK taxpayer who forked out £30 million for the spectacle. There is no ambiguity in her statement no matter how much people will twist themselves up to say otherwise.

If I recall there were two different images from Meghan’s walk down the aisle. The second bit was with the future King, but she walked the first bit by herself.

I get that they didn’t want to have the photo outside the hospital and I completely agree with that. What I don’t understand is why they felt the need to lie about when Archie was actually born. What did they hope to gain by that?

God knows, @smilesy, unless as said it was an opportunity for "fnarr, fnarr, we knew and you didn't" - and all for something we didn't even need to know until they were good and ready

Agree with you about the expectation for the new mums to do the appearance on the steps too. It's one thing if they actively choose to do it, but if pressure's brought to bear it's a horrible way to treat a new mum at such a time

I think it was a two fingers up at the media. I read a blog a while ago that said journalists were told that there would be no news until Meghan was in labour. So they were duly notified and reported it. Then a separate message went out saying that baby was born earlier. So news outlets are made to look stupid reporting that she is in labour hours after the baby is born. So the blogger was saying why not just tell the journalists that they aren’t going to share anything until baby is born. There would be a bit of grumbling but it would be fine. Why make a point of saying that they will be informed of labour, then misinform them and make the reporters look foolish. It’s a game.

Somehow that statement sums it all up for me. Hit the nail on the head.

I think it's perfectly understandable to not want everyone knowing the second you have gone into labour (the embarrassment if it turns out to be a false alarm!) and making the decision to only make an announcement that you've gone to hospital at a point when the baby is almost here. And after all that, forgetting to do so in all the excitement, meaning that the announcements all get messed up.

I agree that they didn't owe us this information, just like Kate did not owe us the information about her health.

I agree with that. However I think the timing of the announcement that M had gone into labour was timed in favour of the American news cycle. It was announced around 1 pm, perfect timing for the American breakfast shows.

I feel like Catherine had no choice but to do the steps picture. Especially with George. She gave birth only a few weeks after I gave birth to DC1 and I felt SO sorry for her, she looked like she wanted to cry.