Harry and Meghan Book Reviews - Meghan Markle Discussion

[–] Satan2016 (26234) 4 years ago

Where do those ratings come from? M&H is 4.1/5 on Amazon, and 3.6/5 on GoodReads.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

Good point. I edited to add they are my reviews.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

It might be interesting to read about the environment but I take everything published about the Royal Family with a tablespoonful of salt. Who knows what is true and what is false. Half the stuff in the tabloids is obviously just random guesswork to sell newspapers. For this reason, I think the Queen's policy of never complain, never explain, was a good policy, because it leaves it all a mystery. I think what Meghan did not realize when she "corrected" the narrative (I assume she told the truth) about the incident with the flower girls' dresses, is that if you hasten to point out that this particular story was incorrect, and you fail to do the same for other stories, then it makes the other stories sound like they were true (otherwise why didn't you run to correct THOSE stories?) What about the story about Meghan being mean to the Queen's dresser about wanting to take a priceless tiara away for a hairdressing trial? She didn't correct that story, so... I guess that was true? Trying to correct these things is a can of worms.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

To clarify, Lady C explains the lifestyle and values differences among old money new money, no money and real money which often contradict with each other. It makes sense that barely new money Meghan wouldn't fit in Harry's old money world. Big lifestyle difference between being a royal and A-list celebrity, too.

She also explains the differences between the American and British press and its symbiotic relationship with the royal family which Harry actually repeated during the Oprah interview. Both Harry and Meghan want plenty of publicity, but only positive stories which contradicts freedom of the press.

Lady C has good credentials since she is a socialite who personally knows the royals and is very forthcoming with information.

The tiara had already been promised to Princess Eugenie for her wedding by the Queen. Eugenie's wedding was pushed back so Meghan was trying to pull a fast one by claiming the same tiara since she'd marry first. Lady C explains that brides don't have access to just any tiara. Choices of tiara are limited by royal rank. That tiara was never an option for Meghan and the Queen made that clear. I liked how Lady C knows and explains these rules. She also gets into how Meghan flaunted rules concerning certain dress colors.

I thought the tabloids were nonsense too until stories like the employees abuse, brothers not talking, Charlotte dress fight and other stories ended up being true.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I think your last two lines really hit the nail on the head. Until specific tabloid stories were confirmed, we all thought the tabloids were nonsense. Now we know they aren't. Oops.

I'm interested in Lady Campbell's book now.

I think what you say about freedom of the press makes sense. It was surprising to me that Meghan felt the Royal Family would be able to shut down all sorts of press stories, as if the Press are just supposed to print adulation about the Royals when instructed to do so by the queen. She seems to think the Royal Family has a lot more constitutional power than they actually do. It was as if she felt that by joining the family she would acquire all of this power to carry out her personal ideas, as if she were being elected to Congress or becoming the President. The Royal Family enjoy great wealth, supported by privileged treatment in tax/inheritance laws. But look at what they do: they are not rulers (though the pomp and circumstance might provide that illusion), they are a combination of diplomat and tourist attraction.

In another thread, someone linked to a video that joined together a number of clips showing the way she behaves around Harry, walking ahead of him, cutting in front of him to introduce herself to other dignitaries as if she is of higher rank than Harry, putting her hand on him to direct him to stop walking so she can go in front of him, and directing him where and when to walk or even when to stand or sit. When you see a number of clips joined together, it's really striking, especially because Harry has been doing this all his life so the correct etiquette for diplomatic situations is second nature to him. In some of the videos you can clearly see him do a double-take when Meghan redirects him. It's very much NOT as if she's his equal but as if she's his superior.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

Meghan wants $100+ million each year, a private jet, large yacht, mansions, and hobnobbing with Elton John and other A-listers. As a royal, she worked all day at boring ribbon-cuttings, lived in a drafty old home and received an allowance of $3-4 million plus another $1-2 million for clothes which wasn't enough so Charles kicked in more for her wardrobe. She wanted to monetize the royal titles which is illegal. Harry earned $1 million for one speech talking about Di's death leading to his mental issues. Piers Morgan recently accused him of profiting off his mother's death to earn money.

If Meghan divorced in England, she would've received very little and lose custody of the kids. In California, she'll get half and likely keep the kids. After those kids become royals when Charles becomes king, she can dump Harry for a billionaire if he can't make the money she wants since she can exploit her kids' titles.

The press maintains interest in the royals by adding drama in which some is fictitious. Photo ops of working in soup kitchens are boring after a while.

Meghan is a narcissist. She thinks she's equal to the queen also by "negotiating" terms of their exit. The queen slapped back hard by forbidding them to use their royal titles and removing military titles from Harry. She can remove their royal titles if they don't behave.

I'm not surprised by the video. I saw one in which she's practically pushing Harry out of the way to meet someone. She wanted to improve the way royals do things, but who asked her?

Lady C is a character! She has a youtube channel. She outed the "racist" royal who Harry wouldn't name. It was Princess Anne. Lady C said race and skin color were never mentioned and Harry misunderstood. Anne basically explained why Meghan wouldn't fit into royal life. She was right.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Ok I read it, it was a quick read. I thought it was going to be more biased but it was surprisingly even-handed. I wish she had footnoted it so I could keep track of her public sources (not the confidential ones, which she didn't name but she made clear when she was working from her own private sources) - some of the material she mentioned was the same as what I've seen on the internet, including the story of Meghan making Kate cry at the wedding, which we now know to be incorrect. If she had footnoted her sources I would have been able to separate out which ones are more likely to be apocryphal and which are more solid.

She had quite a bit of information that seemed to be from her own personal sources, that was very interesting and I tend to believe those reports.

I liked that she put everything together chronologically so you could understand how the timelines all matched up. I had forgotten some of the stories, such as the story about people at Wimbledon being asked not to take photos. Who knows if that one is really true.

What I really found convincing though, was the long trail of people from M's life who suddenly found themselves cut off. If it was just one or two friends, I might conclude maybe they were just not very nice people, but when there is such a long list, that makes you wonder.

The author also seemed really struck by the fact that Meghan's mother was her only relative at her wedding. Even if Samantha Markle and the other relatives on her father's side were all problematic, that does not explain why none of her relatives on her mother's side were there either. (And yet lots of people like Oprah and the Clooneys, who she had apparently only met a few times, were there.) The author seemed really bothered by M's choice not to include more of M's relatives, and even though the author's style was a bit verbose at times, it made me trust the author more that this was one of the things that bothered her, because it bothered me too.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

Wow! You read fast. I agree with your critique of the book except about the dress and tennis incidents. Meghan often tells lies which are easily refuted. In "Finding Freedom", a book in which she cooperated, nobody cried and Catherine and Meghan have a wonderful relationship. Meghan is the one with issues re: employees quitting en masse, ghosting family and friends; temper tantrums and narcissism. My money is on Meghan making Catherine cry since it appears to be her MO. Perhaps Meghan was put on the spot during the interview so she said the first thing that came to her.

I watched the news when a sports announcer casually announced Meghan in the stands during Serena's game and said she didn't want photos taken of her. I only remembered because I found it amusing that she was being videotaped which is worse. And there were empty seats surrounding her and she was wearing jeans which I recently heard were taboo.

I thought Megan's mother sitting alone was very depressing. I was relieved when Charles attended to her a few times. And why didn't an uncle walk Meghan down the aisle when her father became ill? Maybe she drops people who are no longer her "equal" as she moves up.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Gosh, I so agree with you, I felt so bad for her mother. It was really beautiful to see Prince Charles walk Meghan up the aisle and even though he is not my favorite royal, I thought that was just such a generous and welcoming gesture.

I think you are right about the tennis incident, that makes sense.

I think Meghan told the truth about the flower girl's dress, as she saw the truth. But I agree there are some points that don't really fit her narrative. First of all, she cannot know whether Kate cried or not. Maybe Kate cried when she was alone after the incident. How would Meghan know? Meghan said in the interview that Kate was upset about something. Is that much different from crying? It's all left carefully vague but to me the most likely conclusion is that they both cried. I also have a suspicion that what happened is that Kate told Meghan that in the British RF, little girls wear tights to formal events, and it would be seen as gauche if they didn't. I think Meghan was offended at her advice and basically took the position: it's my wedding, I'm going to do it how I want. The reason I think this is because everything we've seen of Kate, she's really meticulous about following the rules of etiquette, especially after her early slipups with unweighted or too-short skirts, and because critical advice would explain why Meghan cried (and I have read that the issue of tights etiquette is what was upsetting Kate). Also when Meghan was dressed inappropriately for Trooping the Color (the pink off-the-shoulder dress), Meghan (in my opinion) looked as if she knew she was not hitting the right notes. She looked so uncomfortable in her outfit. And Kate looked as if she was purposefully ignoring the whole situation, she just had this look on her face like "told ya so." My personal interpretation is that after the way the situation with the flower girls dresses turned out, Kate just decided, I offer advice on these complicated rules and you interpret it as mean criticism? Ok, go ahead and do what you like.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

And don’t forget that Kate had recently given birth to Louis not o’ng before the H and M wedding

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

The stocking rule makes plenty of sense for very young girls. I saw a tacky photo taken of Charlotte raising her leg in her flower girl's dress. Fortunately nothing revealed, but it shows how practical stockings are for modesty. I wonder if the photographer was trying to make Catherine's point.

Only Meghan says she cried. Everyone else says it was Catherine. I'm assuming some workers at the dress-fitting talked. Meghan lies so much I just don't believe anything she says.

reply

[–] TinaKimo (963) 4 years ago

None of the girls in Zara's wedding wore stockings or tights! No one else said lazy, waity katie cried! Meghan has receipts. The fact that you listen to lady C, knowing darn well she married her husband w/o telling him she had male genitals says all! Lady C ain't nothing but a trifling liar!

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

As I understand it she is actually a biological female born with a malformation of external tissue. Technically, femaleness is defined by having ovarian structures. (External genitalia are a secondary sex characteristic.)

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

You obviously have something against Kate. Why?

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

Zara's not a royal and a billion plus people didn't watch her wedding, therefore she has more freedom.

I was team Harry and Meghan until they spent two hours trashing his family and repeatedly lied which caused me to take a look at all those tabloid stories I had been ignoring for the past couple of years.

Harry and Meghan's behavior speaks for itself.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Same

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

I was going to say ditto, but I actually came around about M & H a while ago, starting about the time they announced they were quitting RF duties.

Imo some of the juiciest parts about the Oprah interview are when Meghan and Harry tried to play the sympathy, attention-seeking card, and only ended up revealing how selfish and ridiculous they are.

Harry whinging about being cut off, financially, and having to rely on the millions of pounds his mother left him. How is the average person supposed to feel sympathy for a man who is nearly 40 years old, complaining that his father doesn’t want to pay for his lifestyle anymore?

Meghan comparing herself to Disney’s Little Mermaid has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard! It is so laughable! How the eff did Oprah keep a straight face when she heard that remark?

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

Someone referred to newborn Archie with an ugly racial insult which convinced me that racism was ongoing, therefore I supported their departure.

I think it's complicated with some racism involved, Meghan's abusive behavior and their desire to be billionaire A-list celebrities. On the other hand, I don't see "activist" Meghan and Harry doing anything to actually reduce racism besides whine.

The Oprah interview was a disaster for their reputations. Meghan has PR people advising them, so I wonder if she's listening or doing her own thing.

The two of them are so out-of-touch and entitled it's scary.

You must have been laughing during the entire interview. I become annoyed when people lie, but perhaps I should rewatch the interview and see it as the entertaining comedy it really was.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

I couldn’t watch most of it, I was so annoyed and sorry for the queen. I had to read the transcript first, and let it all sink in before watching the rest.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

When I first saw the interview, I felt that they made a reasonable case that they had to leave because of the elevated threat level to Archie from racist elements that were threatening him. I was shocked that Archie wasn't going to get his own protection. Then I read some of the UK discussion that talked about that it is actually the police service or something like that, that decides what protection each member of the RF gets, it is not something Charles or the Queen controls. And that is because the public purse pays for that protection. So if the usual authorities assess the threat, and decided that Archie was not under greater threat, then I am not sure what to make of their claims about his need for protection.

It was also discussed that most of the royals who live at the palace, do not get protection paid for when they leave the property. Being on the property, they are presumably covered by whatever security covers the palace, but when they go offsite, they have to either hire their own protection or go without. When Beatrice and Eugenie became adults, their protection was removed, apparently, and this caused conflict between Andrew and Charles.

So if it is normal and expected that minor royals (Beatrice, Eugenie, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, whoever else) pay for their own security when they leave the Palace grounds, and if most of them do so, then it must be affordable (since everyone else is doing it). So I found that confusing, that Harry felt it was not doable for him to do what many other Royals are doing.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

Correct, Scotland Yard (London metro police) are responsible for security and the public purse does pay for it. Security is present at royal residences and when members of the royal family attend functions and events in an official capacity.

M and H gave up the privilege of official security at the public expense when they decided they didn’t want to be working royals anymore. (And that’s when and why they lost their official stipends from the public purse.)

I thought M was disingenuous re the security. Imo she was actually upset about the title and the money, and pretended Archie’s security was the reason or justification for complaining that he wouldn’t bear the prince title until Charles becomes king, and that they wouldn’t have their hefty stipends anymore.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I wondered if part of the problem was Meghan wanting to spend significant amounts of time in the USA, where I would imagine buying 24 hour security is MUCH more expensive than if they spent most of their time in the UK where some of it is already incorporated into the Palace system. I wouldn't blame her for wanting to spend a lot of time here, since the USA is where she is from, but it's not really Charles' fault if she would rather spend a lot of time here, and I also wouldn't blame him if he didn't want to spend millions from his duchy income annually on paying for their security to be in the USA for long periods.

Also, you marry an English prince, I would think you'd understand the deal is that you live in England. He's her husband now so I don't agree with the people who complain that she took him away from "his family" (she IS his family; Archie IS his family). Lots of people move away from their parents and grandparents. But I think in a few years Harry will really start missing England, because he always lived there, and because, as a member of the RF, it's his home in a way that is a bit more tightly connected than most of us. He was raised to feel a responsibility to the place and its people. Leaving permanently must feel a bit like desertion. It's not like Joe Schmoe deciding to move to a new country. I don't know, I suppose we'll see what will happen.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

Could be.

I can’t help believing that M never took the royal commitments seriously. It seems as though she assumed she could pick and choose and abstain from events that didn’t interest her. She was apparently under the illusion that as long as she “showed up” and put in her 15 minutes at events, that was all that would be required. She couldn’t understand why that wasn’t acceptable. And when she finally accepted what a life of ribbon-cutting and hand-shaking would be like, she bailed.

I’m not convinced that she really didn’t understand how hard the royals work. I think she just expected that she would be entitled to play it her way. Perhaps she didn’t grasp that being a member of the RF is something so much bigger than that. They aren’t Hollywood celebrities; they’re national symbols and the nation’s enduring connection to its history.

I found her defense that she was uninformed and naive about royal life disingenuous. She thought it would be a Disney fairy tale? Really? I call BS. She isn’t stupid, but she must think Oprah’s viewers are.

Life for women who marry into the royal family has been made very public. Diana made sure of that. Sarah Ferguson’s very public peccadilloes also shed quite a bit of light. And most recently, Catherine’s experiences with the tabloids before and after her marriage to William have been very widely covered in the media.

I just don’t buy it that Meghan didn’t Google any of this.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I agree with that. Even the most generic newsfeed will regularly push news about the RF's routine engagements to the top.

The reports of her waking at 5 am seem credible to me, that fits with what I have read about actors' lives, that they have to work very hard, long hours. What stood out to me was that she seemed to think she would come in and lead like a CEO: making the rules, setting policy, giving directions to other people. Watching the videos of her public speaking makes me think that, as well as the videos of how she interacted with people when she was working on her projects. But if you look at videos of Catherine, William, Sophie Wessex, etc, they don't come in to a workplace and tell people what to do. They come in and pay attention to people who are already doing work, and make them feel important and appreciated for their work. They are sort of thanking you on behalf of the country, and giving you an opportunity to feel like, wow, the Duchess of Cambridge was interested in whether my feet hurt after my shift.

I remember reading an interview with Sophie Wessex and she was saying that early on, she thought "work" meant she would contribute ideas and make specific action plans and so on. She brought paper and pencil to her first meeting to take notes. And then she discovered that "work" meant OTHER people do the work and she cheerleads. So that was a big adjustment for her. So I don't think it is a surprise if Meghan felt frustrated by that.

Based on how M interacts with H in videos I have seen of them together, I think she quite likes giving instructions to other people. I think she expected she would modernize the monarchy by leading and directing others; H would follow her lead, and Catherine would blend in to the background as M would eclipse her in style, brains, and charisma. I suspect that it was hard to discover that Catherine would always be above her in the hierarchy. (Note, though, that when Catherine and William got married, the royal order of precedence was changed so that, unless William was present, Catherine would have to curtesy to the blood princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. We don't hear Catherine complaining about that, even though it must sting a bit since it was changed just for her).

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

The original plan wasn't for Meghan and Harry to leave England. They would live in America for 6 months to make money, then do their royal duties for 6 months aka: half in; half out. In other words, they would profit off their royal titles in America and then reinforce their royalty by doing a few photo-ops in England. The queen said no way so they came up with a sob story to help their brand since they can't say it's all about the money.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Ooh, I don't think I would have liked that. I think it would have been very awkward.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

There was also the whole issue that it had long been known that Charles felt there wasn't enough money to pay for a lot of the things that minor royals had become used to, and that he wanted the RF to slim down. For example, Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex, and Princess Ann, do royal engagements, but Zara, Beatrice, and Eugenie, do not. Prince Harry, in his position in the long-term, is basically the equivalent of Princess Ann here, and Archie is like Zara or Beatrice. Again, other royals seem to make it work.

Now, maybe Harry and Meghan feel they needed more money than other royals because their security needs are higher, and they are in a catch-22 because as senior royals they would not have been able to earn the income needed to fund Archie's higher security needs. But then all they needed to say in their interview with Oprah was, well, just that. I don't think they needed to show all that open bitterness toward the rest of the RF.

In the UK, someone will occasionally see Kate with her kids shopping at a grocery store, or at a playground. When they do, it is a big deal and we hear about it in the tabloids ("She's just like us!"). I don't know how things really work there, but I get the impression that, although the RF live very privileged lives, they are also VERY constrained in where and when they can go out, because of the security issues and because they are so recognizable. I don't think it was just Meghan. I can see why she would have hated it and been miserable, but again, I'm not sure why it has to be personal against the RF rather than realizing that being a famous, wealthy, royal princess comes with significant restrictions on your everyday movements.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I actually knew someone in college who said something similar about being like the little mermaid, and when Meghan said that, I thought of that person. One doesn't want to be mean, but you wonder if people hear themselves when they say these things. If the way you envision your relationship with the world is like a cartoon character, I don't know, I feel like you have to up your game a little bit, so that you can join the rest of us at the grownups' table.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

I know, right?! Utterly ridiculous. That she would actually think comparing herself to a cartoon Disney princess would be effective? Ick. Furthermore, as an actress, couldn’t she have come up with a better example, such as Shakespeare or George Bernard Shaw? Not only would that be more mature, but I might have been able to take it seriously.

And the way M told the details of how they were watching the film etc., it all just came off way too contrived. I just couldn’t buy it.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

It makes more sense to me if Meghan cried because it wasn't Kate's wedding. Very common for brides to get emotional about details of wedding planning. Completely agree on the practical issue of stockings for flower girls, especially a little girl who will be in the public eye her whole life through her birth status. Even at my kids' schools, girls often wear shorts or leggings under their skirts so that they can play freely without worrying. We think of stockings as a strange throwback to the years when women and girls were restricted in what they can do, but sometimes certain modes of dress just make sense.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

The issue is that the authors, Meghan and court documents state that Meghan's close friends and palace aides talked to the authors of "Finding Freedom' in which the incident had no one cry and Kate and Meghan's relationship was fine. Which Meghan version are we supposed to believe?

I agree Meghan was likely emotional and stressed, but she may not be a crier. More like an abusive Bridezilla type. I read she called Charlotte chubby when she couldn't fit in the dress. I could see that making Kate upset.

Shorts under girl's dresses became popular in my parochial elementary school especially after both boys and girls would lift dresses as a joke.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

It makes more sense to me, if you want to consider situations which are common for women to become emotional and cry, that Kate had just given birth to Louis and so it is more likely that Kate cried.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Yeah that makes sense from an emotional pov. I just find it harder to see why that would happen over tights? But some of the more detailed stories give a fuller explanation why that might happen. Just hard to know what the truth is.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

The tights are important because Kate is practically faultless about protocol. She is so cautious to never put a toe out of line because of the attacks she had to endure from the tabloids back when she first started dating William.

Additionally, protocol really means something to Kate because William will be king one day and she will be his consort. She has dedicated her life to embodying everything that a future queen [consort] should be. To ignore protocol is to disrespect the monarchy and the purpose of the royal family.

Traditions and protocols are what make the monarchy “special”; some of them may seem ridiculous or stuffy, but taken together, they establish a standard that carries great significance.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Very nicely said!

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

Thank you!

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

The situation with her dad was so sad. Leading up to the wedding, I was thinking, "The RF advisors that they sent over to help her family deal with the publicity, are really not doing a very good job." Then I thought, the RF probably hasn't sent any advisors; in fact, maybe it's not possible because British security officers wouldn't even have the legal right to even be there.

Even so, Meghan was well-off even before she married Harry; I would think she could have hired a security firm to protect him for a few weeks from all the invasions of his privacy, gotten her own PR firm to give him some support, anything. I actually assumed there must be SOME kind of advisors assigned to him and he just wasn't listening to them, but in the interview I got the strong impression she and Harry just left him on his own and expected him to figure out how to deal with all the papparazi pressure by himself. He's a lighting director, not an actor. Lighting directors are not celebrities and I don't think her expectations of him were fair.

The way she was talking about her directions to him it sounded as if, not talking to the press was a test he had to pass in order to be in her good graces, rather than an external burden placed on him as a result of her good fortune. When she was talking about the news when his home was found, and the big outcry about "we found him!" I was thinking, "Well, yeah, that's what he had to deal with! It sounds really hard." She said something so odd after that, to demonstrate why the press harassment of him was bad; she said, "That's someone's father." And I thought, what a strange way to phrase things, because the center of that sentence is the word "someone" (the someone being Meghan, of course). A more sensible and intuitive thing to say would have been something like, "He didn't ask to have his privacy invaded." He was only in that situation because Meghan chose to marry Harry.

I hope I would be more protective of my dad in that situation.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

The timeline with Meghan's father is odd. She forgave him after he posed for the photos and his first heart attack. She still wanted him to walk her down the aisle. But, she and Harry became angry with him and stopped communicating after he had his second heart attack. That's really cold.

Harry and Meghan are self-centered and sold their souls for money. I don't see it ending well for them, especially Harry who gave up so much and looks miserable.

reply

[–] TinaKimo (963) 4 years ago

Did you not watch the extra clips aired on CBS after the Oprah interview? The UK tabloids tracked down Meghan's parents as soon as her and Harry's relationship was outed by camilla tominey! The uk tabs sent some one down to Mexico who moved next door to Meghans dad, giving him "gifts". Harry spoke of an invisible contract between the royals and the tabloids. Its no surprise they worked together to get Meghan's dad to try to postpone/stop the wedding. The dad faked a heartache. He was seen two days later on a KFC drive. Who picks up fast food after supposedly having a fucking heartache?? You need to go read the case papers Meghan won against the daily fail!

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I am a fast reader but the book was also gripping and her writing style is very funny so I stayed up late to read it. You think she's about to say something really catty and then she makes a turn and says something that actually is quite sensible and fair. She does say some catty stuff in the book but more about Diana than Meghan. The parts I really liked were where she talked about her palace sources. Again, if Meghan and Harry hadn't given the interview, I actually would have assumed that Lady C's sources were probably imaginary. But given that Meghan and Harry spilled some tea, I can actually now believe that people in the palace might disclose their opinions to Lady C.

Thanks for the book recommendation! I am also listening to some of her youtube videos while cleaning the kitchen (not right now, i mean earlier), it's always great to have something to listen to during chores!

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

You're welcome! I found her book surprisingly good and filled with some pearls of wisdom. My opinion about several people did change because of her revelations. I have a higher opinion of Meghan's father and sister and a lower one of Diana. Meghan and Harry's interview soured me on them.

Lady C's youtube videos are entertaining. I can tell she enjoys the attention she's receiving now.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I think many of us had sympathy for Diana because of the situation she got stuck in, but even watching her big interview, it's striking that her interpersonal style is a bit strange. I have been watching The Crown and I don't think it is particularly complimentary of Diana, even though it also shows great sympathy for her situation.

Lady C's book and videos didn't change my opinion of Meghan and Harry, though I did appreciate the insight into how things work in the palace environment. When M and H first got engaged, I thought, thank heaven Harry found someone. Meghan seemed nice and of course she's very beautiful. I was looking forward to seeing lots of beautiful clothes and tiaras. But they way they have handled things has been so off-putting.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

I liked Diana, but realized she used the press to manipulate public opinion especially when she posed alone in front of the Taj Majal which prompted the queen to allow the divorce. I think she also hurt the royals by shining too much light on them. Everything quieted down after she died. Elizabeth and Charles didn't treat her right, but I think they both changed and became better people which showed in how welcoming they were toward Meghan.

I felt the same about Harry and Meghan but the obvious lies in Finding Freedom began my lower opinion of them. The Oprah interview completely changed my mind. Harry and Meghan are a huge disappointment.

I just started Sarah Ferguson's autobiography. I feel sorry for her because she becomes so thankful when anyone treats her half decently. She expects to be abused. I had no idea she and Diana were cousins and had ancestors who were dukes.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

I felt that excising Diana from the RF after the divorce was not good. She was still the mother of the next two in line after Charles. It offended me to see her pushed out. I do think QEII learned from it, though. I also agree that she seemed to use the press and maybe basked a little too much in getting more attention than Charles, even before they divorced. Imagine if Prince Philip had decided he needed more attention than Queen Elizabeth. Her reign would have been very different. The spouse's job is to support the Royal, not to supplant them. I always find it interesting to look at the dynamic between Kate and William in that light. Even though Kate is very beautiful, and people really want to see her when they go out (and William jokes about it at times), she doesn't push herself forward or take over (maybe a bit too much on the opposite side: she sometimes seems to lack confidence in public).

I didn't read Finding Freedom. But, yeah the Oprah interview sank it for me too. How can you complain about betrayal and then reveal all this private information about your family to the whole world? I can't even...

I remember when it became clear that Meghan and Harry would get married, people were so excited that the monarchy was going to get modernized and jazzed up a bit. Kate is pretty and seems like a stable presence, but she's a bit boring, you know? I read an article recently that said something like, now that we think about it, maybe we LIKE stable and boring!

I'm sad that we will see fewer tiaras and evening gowns. I always look forward to those.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

Covid is ruining many tiaras and evening gown moments, too. I was looking forward to Princess Beatrice's wedding for months.

Kate is dull, but her three children are adorable.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Same here. I hope once the pandemic is under control, that we get some EXTRA tiara-viewing opportunities.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

A sad situation, but this Saturday is Prince Philip's funeral. If it's not televised, I'll try to watch it on youtube where I was able to watch Charles & Camilla's wedding plus many other royal weddings (Swiss, Luxembourg, Monaco, etc.).

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Me too.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

Diana posing alone in front of the Taj Mahal did not prompt the queen to allow the divorce. The negative publicity created by those photos prompted the queen to allow a separation.

The divorce was prompted by Diana’s scathing Panorama interview in which she stated that Charles shouldn’t be king.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

I stand corrected. I had incorrectly remembered the interview taking place before the Taj Mahal incident. Her being there alone was upsetting because years earlier she described it as being THE romantic place where she would like to be with the man she loved.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

You should watch “Diana, in her own words” (I think that’s the title?). I watched it last year on netflix. It contains many minutes of audio recordings that Diana made for Andrew Morton, answering specific questions for him whilst he was writing her biography. The questions and tapes were smuggled in and out of Kensington Palace by a friend who was helping Diana and Morton.

I found much of it shocking. Diana was very candid about how sad, lonely, and yes, desperate, she was during her marriage. It’s clear that she was frequently unstable and really out of her element. She was totally unprepared for the life she married into. And she was so young, and so vulnerable, and yes, damaged, as well, from her parents’ divorce and mother’s abandonment.

Her marriage to Charles never stood a chance, and not just because of Camilla. It’s terribly sad.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

That's so sad!

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

Re: tennis

From what I understand, it’s against protocol to wear jeans at Wimbledon, regardless of whether one is royal or not. Lots of tennis clubs have dress codes and Wimbledon is no exception. M was criticized because she knew she wouldn’t be barred from entering, or asked to change, because of who she is. She also wore a large, wide-brimmed hat, which is also not permitted at Wimbledon.

As for the empty seats, did I read that M had bought forty seats surrounding her, so she and her friends wouldn’t have to sit with other spectators? If true, that couldn’t have gone down well! And it’s yet another example of M flaunting royal privilege.

reply

[–] Keelai (36182) 4 years ago

There is a photo of empty seats around her. She allowed success to go to her head.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

Such a rude thing to do when surely there were people who wanted to get tickets but were unable to obtain them.

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

It was clear very early on that Meghan was consciously opting not to follow longstanding Palace policy about speaking out on opinions in public (e.g. Meghan mentioning in public that she was happy about an abortion referendum). That is her prerogative, but if a particular way works in the Royal Family, and you decide to do your own method, then I feel like you should not be surprised if it doesn't work.

Just my opinions.

reply

[–] TinaKimo (963) 4 years ago

You do know that Prince Andrew spoke on Brexit?? The Queen herself intervened in many political topics. These people are racist and never wanted Harry to marry her! Go read the latest shitfest in the daily mail by Dan Woottoon. William is love sick over Harry leaving b/c Harry was suppose to be that shadow king for him! William don't know how to do shit, but cheat on that lazy, evil wife of his!

reply