|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Mar 8, 2021 12:35:37 GMT
I didn't see the full interview, just clips, but was confused by the prince controversy regarding Archie. When he was born it sounded like they didn't even want a courtesy title and I recall the "controversy" that when Charles becomes king a prince title would be forced on him - in this interview it sounded like they wanted the prince title and that it was against "protocol" that he was denied the title. I haven't seen the full interview but going on what has been posted on here and the snippets that have been released here, Meghan has totally misinterpreted and given quite a false narrative of why Archie doesn't have a title. You're right they did say that they ( H & M ) didn't want a title so he could lead a more normal life but he also wasn't " entitled" to one either. It goes back to the time of letters patent by George V ( the Queens grandfather) more than a 100 years ago when he declared the children and grandchildren of a sovereign have the automatic right to the title HRH and prince or princess. Archie is the great grandchild of the Queen, one of nine. Non of them have titles except for Prince William's children who is a direct heir to the throne. Heck some of her grandchildren don't have titles. Princess Anne and Prince Edward chose for them not to have any. George V’s declaration means that only Prince George, as a great-grandson of the monarch down the direct line of succession to the throne, was originally entitled to be a prince, as he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The Queen did step in ahead of George’s birth to issue letters patent to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children would have the titles of prince and princess. But they are children of the future monarch, whereas Archie is not. His father, Harry, is sixth in line to the throne, and will move down the line of succession if William and Kate have more children, and as George, Charlotte and Louis have children of their own. There is very little chance of Harry or his children to ever be a monarch. This is why I am confused about Archie's titles. Did no one explain this to her? Hell, does HARRY not understand this patent? He must. As an American, very interested in the BRF (and some of the other European ones too), even I knew about this patent, and that William's children are "exempt" because they are direct lines to the future monarch. I new the patents were changed before George was born bc previously it was male-only, and if she had a girl, she would not have been allowed to be monarch. THat was changed, but George was a boy, so I guess if he has a daughter, she can be monarch? (Or, I guess if something happens to him, Charlotte will be queen and it will not pass over her and go to Louis.) I understand when CHarles becomes King, Pr Harry's children would receive titles then? But Meghan made it sound like she was told NO he could NOT have a title. Then why tell everyone they have declined a title for him? When Archie was born, they hid his birth from the press. There was some sort of agreement and Harry went back on it. Privacy probably  but she said she was not asked for the "infamous picture." I think that is bullshit. Of course the press wanted that picture! THEY wanted more control (and honestly, the picture of Archie meeting the Queen are some of my favorites) but don't sit there and tell me you weren't ever asked for it. Come on. Oh, and not knowing how to curtsey or fold your legs? I also call bullshit on that. Kate went thru tons of training, I am sure Meghan took some too, but her engagement and dating period was so quick compared to William and Kate's courtship (wasn't it like 10 yrs?)? As for the tears - sorry. I have a hard time believing an actress who bragged that she could cry on demand a couple of years ago.  |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 8, 2021 12:42:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 8, 2021 12:47:04 GMT
Last minute decided to watch the interview. I believe her and Prince Harry. I'm angry for her and for all the people being duped all these years believing the royal family was good and cares about their people. Nope, just another rich entitled and RACIST family. Why do the British people put up with them? I don't get it. Charles and William are probably the family members that discussed Archie's skin color. Andrew is possibly a pedophile. No, you don't. |
|
|
|
Post by kellapea on Mar 8, 2021 13:00:43 GMT
Oprah just said on "CBS The Morning" that Harry told her it was not his grandfather or grandmother who had concerns about the baby's skin color. He did not tell Oprah in private who it was.
Oprah said the interview was 3 hours 20 minutes before it was edited to 1 1/2 hours.
Oprah said the interview was NOT filmed at Gayle King's house.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 8, 2021 13:08:45 GMT
Okay, NO ONE is talking about the "what color will the baby be" bombshell and the lack of backup facts or information after that drop? My bet would be Prince Philip, he has a history of saying stupid shit without thinking first. That's probably why they refused to say who it was. It's about the intent behind that conversation, I'll bet that every mixed race couple and some members of their family have at some point wondered what their child's eventual skin colour will be. Just thinking or talking about that isn't racist in itself...it only becomes racist if there is a negative connotation. I have very pale skin and if I was having a baby with a man of a different tone, it seems completely natural to be wondering what our children will look like. Harry says the conversation was "very early on" and that it was along the lines of "wonder what the kids will look like?" Meghan retells it as happening during her pregnancy and that it was "wonder how dark he'll be?" and implies that they didn't want to give the Prince title to a baby of mixed race. Only one of those is true, and as Harry was the one who was present, it seems likely that his version is more accurate. That would be my bet as well. He does have a history of *undiplomatic* remarks, plus he has been very ill. I am also hazarding a guess that they don’t want to piss off the Queen. If not him, my next guess would be Camilla. |
|
schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030 
|
Post by schizo319 on Mar 8, 2021 13:13:24 GMT
I have pictures outside the royal palace in Amsterdam from 1999 and 2005. I didn't know until I looked it up just now that the Netherlands even had a Monarch - apparently his name is King Willem-Alexander. I have lots of pictures of palaces, castles, etc from trips to Europe and I don't know if any of them were inhabited when I took the photos. It IS possible to take a picture in front of a historical building and not know or care who lives inside - especially at the age of 15. Her explanation for knowing what was in all the stories was that her friends/family informed her about them (and the fact that she wasn't being "protected") - it was mentioned several times. I don't give two shits about the Monarchy or Megan Markle, although I did watch the interview last night. I didn't find anything they had to say particularly unbelievable. I can totally see an arrogant young actress thinking she didn't need to "research" the royals because she saw herself on an "even footing" with them as a celebrity, and I can totally see Prince Phillip (he of the "slitty-eyed" comment) saying something about the baby's skin tone. |
|
joelise
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,649
|
Post by joelise on Mar 8, 2021 13:17:02 GMT
My bet would be Prince Philip, he has a history of saying stupid shit without thinking first. That's probably why they refused to say who it was. It's about the intent behind that conversation, I'll bet that every mixed race couple and some members of their family have at some point wondered what their child's eventual skin colour will be. Just thinking or talking about that isn't racist in itself...it only becomes racist if there is a negative connotation. I have very pale skin and if I was having a baby with a man of a different tone, it seems completely natural to be wondering what our children will look like. Harry says the conversation was "very early on" and that it was along the lines of "wonder what the kids will look like?" Meghan retells it as happening during her pregnancy and that it was "wonder how dark he'll be?" and implies that they didn't want to give the Prince title to a baby of mixed race. Only one of those is true, and as Harry was the one who was present, it seems likely that his version is more accurate. That would be my bet as well. He does have a history of *undiplomatic* remarks, plus he has been very ill. I am also hazarding a guess that they don’t want to piss off the Queen. If not him, my next guess would be Camilla. There are one or two lesser members of the royal family who I can imagine might make such a remark, but I really can’t imagine Camilla saying any such thing. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 8, 2021 13:18:56 GMT
That would be my bet as well. He does have a history of *undiplomatic* remarks, plus he has been very ill. I am also hazarding a guess that they don’t want to piss off the Queen. If not him, my next guess would be Camilla. There are one or two lesser members of the royal family who I can imagine might make such a remark, but I really can’t imagine Camilla saying any such thing. Maybe not; it’s just a guess. I doubt that we will ever find out. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 8, 2021 13:22:02 GMT
My bet would be Prince Philip, he has a history of saying stupid shit without thinking first. That's probably why they refused to say who it was. It's about the intent behind that conversation, I'll bet that every mixed race couple and some members of their family have at some point wondered what their child's eventual skin colour will be. Just thinking or talking about that isn't racist in itself...it only becomes racist if there is a negative connotation. I have very pale skin and if I was having a baby with a man of a different tone, it seems completely natural to be wondering what our children will look like. Harry says the conversation was "very early on" and that it was along the lines of "wonder what the kids will look like?" Meghan retells it as happening during her pregnancy and that it was "wonder how dark he'll be?" and implies that they didn't want to give the Prince title to a baby of mixed race. Only one of those is true, and as Harry was the one who was present, it seems likely that his version is more accurate. That would be my bet as well. He does have a history of *undiplomatic* remarks, plus he has been very ill. I am also hazarding a guess that they don’t want to piss off the Queen. If not him, my next guess would be Camilla. Prince Harry,via Oprah, has clarified that it wasn't the Queen or Prince Philip. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 6:50:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 13:23:55 GMT
Oh, and not knowing how to curtsey or fold your legs? I also call bullshit on that. Kate went thru tons of training, I am sure Meghan took some too, but her engagement and dating period was so quick compared to William and Kate's courtship (wasn't it like 10 yrs?)?
As for the tears - sorry. I have a hard time believing an actress who bragged that she could cry on demand a couple of years ago. I don't understand about the curtsy bit either. Her best friend is/ was? Jessica the daughter in law of Brian Mulroney an ex Prime Minister of Canada who, by any stretch of imagination would have been familiar with the etiquette of meeting Royals. She was quick enough to tell her that the British Press would bury her but didn't think of asking her mother in law or her husband's Aunt who is a politician in Canada as to how to greet the Queen so she could pass on some tips to her friend Meghan She's also the Queen of Canada so as a family they would have known all the etiquette pertaining to their own head of state.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Mar 8, 2021 13:27:35 GMT
I have pictures outside the royal palace in Amsterdam from 1999 and 2005. I didn't know until I looked it up just now that the Netherlands even had a Monarch - apparently his name is King Willem-Alexander. I have lots of pictures of palaces, castles, etc from trips to Europe and I don't know if any of them were inhabited when I took the photos. It IS possible to take a picture in front of a historical building and not know or care who lives inside - especially at the age of 15. Her explanation for knowing what was in all the stories was that her friends/family informed her about them (and the fact that she wasn't being "protected") - it was mentioned several times. I don't give two shits about the Monarchy or Megan Markle, although I did watch the interview last night. I didn't find anything they had to say particularly unbelievable. I can totally see an arrogant young actress thinking she didn't need to "research" the royals because she saw herself on an "even footing" with them as a celebrity, and I can totally see Prince Phillip (he of the "slitty-eyed" comment) saying something about the baby's skin tone. I follow the Dutch Royal Family. The Queen, Maxima, is fantatsic. They have 3 daughters, so the Netherlands will have a queen monarch, as well as the Swedish Royal Family (Victoria and then her daughter Estelle) AND the Spanish Royal family have 2 daughters (I just recently learned the Spanish Monarchy was restored in the 60s I think?). |
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Mar 8, 2021 13:29:44 GMT
Oh, and not knowing how to curtsey or fold your legs? I also call bullshit on that. Kate went thru tons of training, I am sure Meghan took some too, but her engagement and dating period was so quick compared to William and Kate's courtship (wasn't it like 10 yrs?)?
As for the tears - sorry. I have a hard time believing an actress who bragged that she could cry on demand a couple of years ago. I don't understand about the curtsy bit either. Her best friend is/ was? Jessica the daughter in law of Brian Mulroney an ex Prime Minister of Canada who, by any stretch of imagination would have been familiar with the etiquette of meeting Royals. She was quick enough to tell her that the British Press would bury her but didn't think of asking her mother in law or her husband's Aunt who is a politician in Canada as to how to greet the Queen so she could pass on some tips to her friend Meghan She's also the Queen of Canada so as a family they would have known all the etiquette pertaining to their own head of state. I believe she is no longer friends with Jessica, I believe she made a racist remark and the Duchess has distanced herself from them. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 8, 2021 13:31:01 GMT
t IS possible to take a picture in front of a historical building and not know or care who lives inside - especially at the age of 15. I'm not trying to be rude - but I just can't relate to that lack of curiosity about the world and the surroundings of a photo you are in. Why are you taking a photo of something that means nothing to you or a landmark you know nothing about? That's such a foreign concept to me, especially the "not care" part. So what do you say when you show people your photos and they ask what the building is? |
|
|
|
Post by christine58 on Mar 8, 2021 13:31:41 GMT
Wait..did I just hear on GMA that they were married before their wedding day??
|
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 8, 2021 13:36:07 GMT
Prince Harry,via Oprah, has clarified that it wasn't the Queen or Prince Philip. Of course he has - it seems clear to me that's still where any money is coming from. He probably realized he shouldn't have said anything at all and now he's walking it back, but we all know PP is the most likely suspect based on his past history. |
|
|
|
Post by tyra on Mar 8, 2021 13:37:12 GMT
Wait..did I just hear on GMA that they were married before their wedding day?? Apparently they got married 3 days before the televised wedding. |
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,073
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Mar 8, 2021 13:37:44 GMT
I didn't see the full interview, just clips, but was confused by the prince controversy regarding Archie. When he was born it sounded like they didn't even want a courtesy title and I recall the "controversy" that when Charles becomes king a prince title would be forced on him - in this interview it sounded like they wanted the prince title and that it was against "protocol" that he was denied the title. I haven't seen the full interview but going on what has been posted on here and the snippets that have been released here, Meghan has totally misinterpreted and given quite a false narrative of why Archie doesn't have a title. You're right they did say that they ( H & M ) didn't want a title so he could lead a more normal life but he also wasn't " entitled" to one either. It goes back to the time of letters patent by George V ( the Queens grandfather) more than a 100 years ago when he declared the children and grandchildren of a sovereign have the automatic right to the title HRH and prince or princess. Archie is the great grandchild of the Queen, one of nine. Non of them have titles except for Prince William's children who is a direct heir to the throne. Heck some of her grandchildren don't have titles. Princess Anne and Prince Edward chose for them not to have any. George V’s declaration means that only Prince George, as a great-grandson of the monarch down the direct line of succession to the throne, was originally entitled to be a prince, as he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The Queen did step in ahead of George’s birth to issue letters patent to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children would have the titles of prince and princess. But they are children of the future monarch, whereas Archie is not. His father, Harry, is sixth in line to the throne, and will move down the line of succession if William and Kate have more children, and as George, Charlotte and Louis have children of their own. There is very little chance of Harry or his children to ever be a monarch. I didn't watch the interview but have a question for those who did. I'm going assume that Oprah has a top notch research team and would have considered what topics would come up for discussion. Did Oprah challenge the assertions about Archie not being given a title with the info @dottyscrapper has written? Or did it go unchallenged? |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 8, 2021 13:39:51 GMT
Did Oprah challenge the assertions about Archie not being given a title with the info dottyscrapper has written? Or did it go unchallenged? Unchallenged from what little I've seen. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 8, 2021 13:39:55 GMT
Wait..did I just hear on GMA that they were married before their wedding day?? Another claim that is being looked into. She said they got married 3 days before the official wedding, just her and Harry and the Archbishop in their backyard...privately. If that happened, then it's not legal - the full story here |
|
rickmer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,146
|
Post by rickmer on Mar 8, 2021 13:42:53 GMT
I have no problem believing that she got depressed and felt suicidal. I do find it hard to believe that someone as resourceful as she couldn’t figure out how to get some sort of help. i am not sure it's the ability to be resourceful how to get some help, rather how do you reach out when the perception would be "what do YOU have to be depressed about, anyone would LOVE to be in your situation". depression is an ugly monster that convinced you of your lack of worth and value. i was depressed throughout my 2nd pregnancy. i felt like i had to plaster on this smile because i wanted to get pregnant, couldn't, went to a fertility specialist and was able to conceive. the dark thoughts came and while i was resourceful enough to get help, i felt this terrible sense of guilt, "this is what you wanted me than anything and you have it and you can't even be happy?!". i didn't want to admit to ANYONE how bleak, sad and overwhelmed i felt. my mom is the only one that picked up on it... and she did worry i may harm myself. i don't bear either of them any ill will. i think it's a challenging situation and they have done what they have agreed is best for them and their family. and they are the ones that will bear the consequences (positive and/or negative) of those actions, very much like all of us do. i wish them well. |
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Mar 8, 2021 13:46:11 GMT
I did watch and my main takeaway is they are concerned they lost security when forced out (she needed emotional help, they wanted to step back and were told no) and would like protection. I don't think that's a lot to ask. People have opinions on both sides of this issue and we all know how quickly mobs form based on BS - minimally they should receive protection, IMO.
I found her very believable and the situation to be quite sad.
|
|
schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030
|
Post by schizo319 on Mar 8, 2021 13:48:04 GMT
t IS possible to take a picture in front of a historical building and not know or care who lives inside - especially at the age of 15. I'm not trying to be rude - but I just can't relate to that lack of curiosity about the world and the surroundings of a photo you are in. Why are you taking a photo of something that means nothing to you or a landmark you know nothing about? That's such a foreign concept to me, especially the "not care" part. So what do you say when you show people your photos and they ask what the building is? With all due respect, just because I don't care who lives in the building doesn't mean I "know nothing about" it. When people ask about the palace photo I have framed on my mantle, I usually say something like "It's the royal palace in the town where I was born, completed in 1744 in the classic Baroque style. There's a really gaudy golden hall of mirrors inside and Napoleon is said to have slept there. The ceiling fresco is the largest in the world painted by Tiepolo. Much of the artwork was buried in the ground during the second world war to protect it from destruction. There's also a really enormous wine cellar where my grandmother, mom and I went to a wine tasting, and they have a lovely annual Mozart symphony in the rose gardens in June." I do know a bit about the landmarks that I photograph because my personal interests lie in art and architecture (and WINE - lol), not the modern people who might currently live in the building. |
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,073
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Mar 8, 2021 13:50:50 GMT
Wait..did I just hear on GMA that they were married before their wedding day?? Another claim that is being looked into. She said they got married 3 days before the official wedding, just her and Harry and the Archbishop in their backyard...privately. If that happened, then it's not legal - the full story hereMy understanding is you need minimum of two witnesses, public access to be able to object and valid locations have to be licensed. I'll check but I think you have to get married in a building not in a garden. I'm sure I read that there is a project to update the marriage rules but it's in the very early stages. Eta www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/weddings/From first page of link The problem The main law which governs marriage is from 1836 and has failed to keep pace with modern life. How and where marriages can take place is tightly regulated, and differs depending on the type of wedding. At present, couples have to make a choice between a religious or a civil ceremony, with no option for a ceremony reflecting other beliefs. Couples having an Anglican wedding can give notice to the church; all other couples must give notice at the register office. With few exceptions, all couples must have their wedding either in a place of worship or licensed secular venue, and cannot marry outdoors or even in the garden of a licensed venue. If a couple does not comply with the legal requirements, which may happen with some religious ceremonies, their marriage may not be legally recognised. People often only discover their lack of legal status at the time of relationship breakdown. This means the parties have no legal status or protection and are not counted as married. |
|
|
|
Post by fkawitchypea on Mar 8, 2021 13:52:32 GMT
It does not surprise me that she felt unsupported and trapped. The level of hatred and fascination with these two is really disturbing. I cannot imagine marrying into such a family where I was an outsider already, attacked by the press and my own family, being unallowed to respond/speak for myself, etc, etc. I'm glad they are happy and hope that now that they have said their piece they can move on to do whatever it is they are planning to do to support themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 6:50:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 13:55:24 GMT
Wait..did I just hear on GMA that they were married before their wedding day?? Another claim that is being looked into. She said they got married 3 days before the official wedding, just her and Harry and the Archbishop in their backyard...privately. If that happened, then it's not legal - the full story hereThat is quite true. Legally two people do need to be in attendance and also the place of marriage must also hold a license to perform the ceremony. Back yard licenses are not given out in Britain. If the marriage isn't held in a Church of England then a registrar needs to also be present for that marriage to be legal. The Church of England hold their own parish records to register marriages in the UK. Any other denomination or licensed venue signs the general register for that district for which the registrar has to witness and record the details. |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,053
|
Post by Olan on Mar 8, 2021 14:00:16 GMT
The reason you think Harry is pleasing Meghan instead of protecting her is because you don’t believe Black women are worthy of protection.
If the media/firm treated Diana poorly why does everything Meghan shared need to be fact checked. Do you think she had an EASIER time as a Black woman with an American background? The rush to call her a liar also says you may want to deal with your inclination for racist thoughts.
Does anyone commenting negatively about the couple deny how racist the UK tabloids are? Or how shitty it is to have to field questions about the skin color of your unborn child.
The lack of sensitivity coming from women who have bore children doesn’t surprise me.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 8, 2021 14:02:50 GMT
here is no fucking decent reason to have conversations like this. It’s racist, yes, every mixed race family is racist...sure. If Harry has all those millions from his mother then why is he bitching about his financial situation in this interview? It's quite literally his own words saying that they "had" to do the Netflix deals so he could afford to pay for their own security. Or are you saying he is lying?? If he is so financially independent and has so many millions from his mother, then what the hell is he complaining about then? |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,053
|
Post by Olan on Mar 8, 2021 14:06:45 GMT
here is no fucking decent reason to have conversations like this. It’s racist, yes, every mixed race family is racist...sure. Not every family hounds a pregnant woman so that she may feel nervous if her child comes out “too dark” It’s racist AF but you’d have to not be in order to recognize that. 😏 |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 8, 2021 14:10:39 GMT
Always difficult when you only get to hear one side isn’t it... Yes, always difficult when you only get to hear on side of it and thru the lens of the person who wasn't (or didn't seem to be) very knowledgeable of the Royal Family. Meghan does try to appear to be of knowledge/intelligent of the various charities that she used to be "Champion" of. Why didn't she really research about the Royal Family, British customs/protocols and lifestyle before she married Harry. I'm sure that if she would have asked the questions, to actually be interested; she would have been given answers. Instead she chose to be *ignorant* (Webster Dictionary meaning) about so many things that are British. To me, she seemed to wanted to be spoon-fed about rituals, ceremony and the traditions of "being British" and then seemed to be pouty about people not telling her things. The Duchess of Cambridge grew up in Briton and was aware of the many traditions and general ways of life, as many of these were everyday rituals. Instead, Megan decided (in my mind,) without research on the "whys" of things, to simply dismiss them and then do them in the 'American way', which is so very different than the British way. She worked in Canada for the 7 seasons of 'Suits' and had many Canadian friends. She could have asked some of them, especially Jessica Mulroney, as her FIL was a former Canadian Prime Minister. Canada has some of the protocol/traditions/ways of doing things that are 'similar' to British ways of doing things. All she had to do was ASK! I think that this will be an interview of a person who clouds everything with American ways of doing things, without respect for the Royal Family traditions. Harry appears to be weak, almost down-trodden with his never-ending grief for his mother and how she died. Especially now that he is the same age as when his mother died. I have read the many *pea stories* of how they feel when they super-cede the age of a parent who died young. He loves his wife and wants to please her, so I don't think that they really thought of everything, prior to leaving the Royal Family. A consult with a British Constitutional Lawyer would have really helped them to make their way a bit smoother. These are simply my thoughts on this topic, as seen thru the lens of a Canadian. Interesting take/viewpoint. My lens saw glimpses of Harry STILL mourning his mother and not having anyone in his own family to help him through it. Regarding Meghan, it appears that the RF knowing she was to become part and being American—that they could have reached out with a person to help her navigate all the Royal idiosyncrasies and nuances no? To have any discussion about their child in regards to skin color is just gross. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 8, 2021 14:16:18 GMT
Yeah, this about sums it up for me. I'm interested in the royal family when they are acting like royals. I'm not interested in them when they are acting like dime a dozen reality tv stars. And I have never been a fan of Oprah. The fact that she is their personal friend removes any shred of legitimacy this interview could have had for me. Exactly how I feel, I am actually very disappointed they have taken it to this level. So many things going on in this world right now. Did Megan actually think being a royal meant no hard work? Being in the spot light and having tabloids comment on all you do good or bad is part of being a famous/Royalty. The fact that they have destroyed their relationships with both sides of their families speak volumes for me. I feel like they are selling out the Royals so they can cash-in and support their lavish lifestyle and it makes me sick. Wow! You put all the blame right on to M&H! If the RF engaged in systemic behaviors, policies, traditions that were harmful, racist, or unhealthy—it’s okay as long as they put out a pretty front in public?  |
|
but she said she was not asked for the "infamous picture." I think that is bullshit. Of course the press wanted that picture! THEY wanted more control (and honestly, the picture of Archie meeting the Queen are some of my favorites) but don't sit there and tell me you weren't ever asked for it. Come on.
