"He loves me so boldly...." - Haarpers Interview with Meghan

[Phase42]

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a69289143/meghan-markle-cover-story-interview-2025/

She's a beautiful woman but i can't understand why she just doesn't drop the titles and be herself. And it's odd how she talks about how much 'H' loves her but not how much she loves him.

That's Harry's constant gripe though. He wasn't as protected. He's a victim. Turns out, he's been very well protected, and promoted his whole life.
Yes, I have a copy of Revenge.
I just think it's funny that Harry made millions from his family's privacy yet omitted some of this alleged juicy stuff.
It's all very odd.

My copy of Revenge is on audible and it doesn't show page numbers, only chapters.

I think the notion that she didn’t know who he was is rendered somewhat suspect. Along with her friend, Ninaki’s, assertion that she was very interested in Princess Diana, and her Tig article about Catherine’s wedding - the She-Ra comment. Plus, living in Canada for years, she’d have to be truly ignorant to the point of stupidity to not know who the head of state and her family were. Did she never wonder who the old lady on the bank notes was?

I do agree some unsavoury stuff by Harry was probs covered up.

I still think it's credible Moehringer wanted him to leave some stuff out. For one thing, the Andrew sexual & financial stuff is politically explosive and plausibly a bridge too far to burn. Plus he probably didn't want to get sued : they surely don't have endless money?

Whether the stuff about William is true or not, putting the protection of William and Andrew on an equal footing is a ridiculous supposition.

The royal family is all about the monarch and continuation of the direct line above all else. From birth William has been in line to the throne, whereas Andrew became further and further away from it after Charles had his sons. William needs to be protected for the continuation of the monarchy, although I doubt the palace has needed to do anything like the PR job on him as compared to what they obviously had done for years on Harry before he left the UK.

Andrew's dodgy relationship with Epstein and his misdemeanors and sleazy behaviour was exposed in 2011 when the photo was released, so he wasn't being much protected from that point onwards, whereas at that time Harry was still being portrayed as a cheeky chappie fun guy, so to say Harry had the heat put on him to cover for Andrew is wrong.

The Andrew stuff, as we know, is horrific. I hope it all gets revealed and there are consequences.
Harry was definitely sheltered and protected. It's part of his problem that he won't acknowledge that, and still play the victim.

I think the issue is that William may well have been doing exactly the same drugs and partying as Harry but he didn’t get caught to the same extent - a few worse for wear stumbles out of night clubs in his twenties etc.

It’s just as gross that William was at the colonial themed party but it wouldn’t have been newsworthy or had anywhere near the impact if Harry hadn’t been photographed wearing a Nazi uniform.

It was such a bad decision that even a fellow party goer who thought the theme itself was perfectly okay was shocked enough to leak the photo.

I don’t in a million years believe the papers would have agreed to hide dirt on William in exchange for dirt on Harry. They want to sell papers they’d have happily exposed the future heir.

I think William and Harry were both a bit wild in their 20s. William grew out of it and Harry didn't.

Everything that comes out of her mouth is absolute bollocks

Have you read the Lownie Andrew book? There's lots of other stuff he exposed. Countless sex workers, wasting pots of money while a trade ambassador, hobnobbing and possibly more with unpleasant characters from China and Bahrain.

I've read this & agree that William was more careful : getting drunk with close friends,not in public etc

Otoh, if this didn't happen, why did Bower say it did? Faulty source? I'm sure these claims were sourced. I will check..

And while the tabloids expose a lot they do have lines they won't cross. They could have protected William. There was definitely a lot more about Andrew which has only been revealed now by Lownie. Sarah too, and she's not even in the family technically!

There goes the thread. It only took until page 7 for 'What about Andrew?' so I guess we should be grateful for that.

Just had a look at this. It’s just a rehash of everything, mainly superficial, that we already know.

The photos are a bit strange. Did they use the M&S photographer? Quite masculine, cold, vacant and sullen looking.

The page in question.
ETA the page in question did not upload, sorry.

But did Bower claim that they were specifically leaking unknown dirt on Harry in exchange for killing dirt on William?

Or was it more that they worked harder to come up with ways to protect William’s mistakes than Harry’s?

I suspect that Harry hadn’t plenty of things covered up too but there was just no way to kill some of the stories.

Or the later but when the waiter came to clear the plates and MM said - ‘leave the fries’ - what was the point of that observation? What was the journalist insinuating?

I'm not sure this thread can be rescued from the inevitable derail, but I wonder if they were going for a 'bare bones, serious mature woman' look?

If so the result was not good. Meghan looks hard and uncomfortable in most of the photos. They're definitely not showing either her or the clothes to their best advantage, which is strange in a fashion magazine.

I think that one sailed a long time ago, without her husband's title she'd be paid nothing.

Can I add 'gender reveal' events, another money maker for the tasteless.

Good distinction, I think it was definitely more 2 than 1. Bolland is quoted as saying 'William has to look perfect'.

I'm in the middle of your position, I think they could have protected Harry more (Bower does say in the drugs exclusive William was probably more to blame, and he was older so arguably should have known better, though Harry should too) . But I agree that ge surely was at least somewhat protected & it would've been hard to kill all stories when he was more flamboyant than William.

A lot of it was suggested or out there before he wrote his book. Negative stuff about Harry wasn't just put out there to detract from Andrew. Harry had plenty of positive press while Andrew's behaviour was being talked about.
So to suggest that the palace have conspired to use negative press against Harry in order to detract from Andrew is wrong in my opinion, and is the type of thing conspiracy theorists like to imagine happens.

That look can work, a woman can look powerful/mature etc without looking 'masculine'.

I agree Meghan doesn't look her best, she doesn't look powerful/serious or anything much. Similar to The Cut cover of her a while back.

Often photos seem odd. Eg the one where Harry was behind her & she had her hair fanned out & a white pantsuit (for Time). I wonder if either they're unlucky with photographers or fussy with poor judgement about how they look?

Or maybe they're imperious so the photographers get cross & photo them badly?

Was it? Most of the info? Is it more that it wasn't in high profile articles unlike the Virginia photo?

I'll look up later, I'm interested in how much the press held back about Andrew

If only there were any number of other threads to discuss Andrew.

I wonder if they were going for a 'bare bones, serious mature woman' look?

I wondered that - and wondered if Meghan wanted that pose for the front cover, rather than going for one of the other photos that might have been better.