Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[TipsyTraveler]

I heard she kicks puppies and steals candy from babies, too.

 

[PaulaSB12]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....on-princess-diana-engagement-ring/?viewas=amp

why has this story been released with the title Catherine shouldn’t have got it when William told his brother he was going to prooose Garry chose to give him Diana’s ring. That is now Catherine ring and has been for 1ears so why come out with an article saying it should been Meghan again everything has to be bout her. Like the mental Heath ther was a time when the best way to get rid of an inconvenient family member was to put them in a mental hospital there are now very strict laws about mental health that means only Harry or Meghan could get help for mental issues

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

I heard she kicks puppies and steals candy from babies, too.

Hey we are British. Steal sweets from babies... fine. But you touch those puppies and the entire nation will be outraged!

 

[Karin1984]

Hey we are British. Steal sweets from babies... fine. But you touch those puppies and the entire nation will be outraged!

Probably the same with the tea incident. The hush money wasn't paid because someone got injured, but because they didn't want to come out that the new princess doesn't like tea... That was going to cause a riot.

 

[snappy]

Probably the same with the tea incident. The hush money wasn't paid because someone got injured, but because they didn't want to come out that the new princess doesn't like tea... That was going to cause a riot.

I suspect the tea in question wasn’t organic. Outrage!

 

[Tink-osophy]

Who gave them sympathy. I would expect maybe half of the US and zero Brits.

I guess some is better than none? The spotlight's definitely on them!

And they've got lots of us talking about them.

There is some British sympathy, but I have no idea how much. When you talk about racism and suicide some people are going to take you at your word, regardless. Still, someone advising them surely told them that this avenue wasn't the best way actually to address their more serious claims.

Funnily enough, I do sometimes find I want to have some sympathy for them -- in case there is any truth to what they say and because we're all human -- but they undermined their own case choosing to present it how, where and when they did. ..Unchallenged and 'draughty' one-sided testimony on a popular TV show turned it into more of a soap opera.

 

[BayouQueen]

Yikes! Here come the psych evals. Allegedly "Megs mood swings are the product of mixed personality disorder. Pathological liar with bipolar and extreme vindictive narcissistic traits. There are also borderline and histrionic personality disorders involved. She has used suicide threats to get her way."

Whoa...she is a ticking time bomb but this come as no surprise to those who have followed her antics. Surely H&M knew these were forthcoming. Cant wait to hear their response.

Well, just in general, when someone tells stories that can very easily be disproved, that sure doesn't indicate their mental health is in a good place.

 

[Tink-osophy]

Yikes! Here come the psych evals. Allegedly "Megs mood swings are the product of mixed personality disorder. Pathological liar with bipolar and extreme vindictive narcissistic traits. There are also borderline and histrionic personality disorders involved. She has used suicide threats to get her way."

Whoa...she is a ticking time bomb but this come as no surprise to those who have followed her antics. Surely H&M knew these were forthcoming. Cant wait to hear their response.

Yikes.

..............Where did you get this from? For the kids' sakes, I hope it isn't true.

 

[Tink-osophy]

Well, just in general, when someone tells stories that can very easily be disproved,...

I still don't get how others involved in the interview ignored/are still ignoring those. Why weren't they challenged on some of those things? There must have been behind-the-scenes researchers who saw/see there were holes and who knew those holes would weaken the rest of what they said.

The whole thing is very strange. And, like Snappy said, it's such a mess. Maybe, that's one reason some people just go along with it all, it's easier than asking questions and wading around in the mud.

 

[mamamia2005]

Because of how many holes there are in their stories they or Oprah, possibly both, must have a lot of yes men and women around them.

 

[snappy]

Because of how many holes there are in their stories they or Oprah, possibly both, must have a lot of yes men and women around them.

Also staff willing to modify the headlines they apparently displayed during the show.

 

[Karin1984]

I still don't get how others involved in the interview ignored/are still ignoring those. Why weren't they challenged on some of those things? There must have been behind-the-scenes researchers who saw/see there were holes and who knew those holes would weaken the rest of what they said.

The whole thing is very strange. And, like Snappy said, it's such a mess. Maybe, that's one reason some people just go along with it all, it's easier than asking questions and wading around in the mud.

Because the truth doesnt really matter. CBS wanted a juicy interview that would sell for millions of dollars. Which it did. And probably will sell even better because of lies. Every time a British tv show, shows some of the interview to explain certain claims, CBS will earn money.

And second, it was intended for the US market to give them an underdog story to get sympathy for the couple. In the US there will be no tv shows or hardly any tv shows to point out lies, because the US public doesnt care enough about H & M yet. If they were extremely important people caught on a lie, then it would be a thing, but they are not at that level. Maybe they will be in the future and then it will be relevant.

 

[redrosesix]

Also staff willing to modify the headlines they apparently displayed during the show.

This.

I think this was possibly the worst part of the interview. And although I don't like that H and M made statements that were easily disproven, I think the editorial practices at Harpo are the bigger issue. There should have at least been a disclaimer that the allegations were opinion. They should not have deleted scenes from the interview just to make it as incendiary as possible, like Harry saying it wasn't the Queen or Prince Philip who made the remark to him (obviously there was a much longer conversation about that than what we saw but it must have contradicted what M said more than what we saw).

I think Harpo took advantage of the fact that the RF would not sue them for false and misleading statements. they won't go after the writers or producers of the movie that is going to be made about this chapter either, but I'll bet there is a disclaimer on the movie saying it is a fictionalized account.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/t...99-movie-in-the-works-at-lifetime/ar-BB1eVHYL

 

[redrosesix]

I guess some is better than none? The spotlight's definitely on them!

And they've got lots of us talking about them.

There is some British sympathy, but I have no idea how much. When you talk about racism and suicide some people are going to take you at your word, regardless. Still, someone advising them surely told them that this avenue wasn't the best way actually to address their more serious claims.

Funnily enough, I do sometimes find I want to have some sympathy for them -- in case there is any truth to what they say and because we're all human -- but they undermined their own case choosing to present it how, where and when they did. ..Unchallenged and 'draughty' one-sided testimony on a popular TV show turned it into more of a soap opera.

I don't much care about M either way. I think the RF is as much at fault for allowing her to bully her staff as she is...in large organizations these days, staff can expect protection and fair compensation when other staff members cross lines. But I didn't follow her before so I have a hard time caring about anyone who makes statements that are obviously false with a straight face.

I want to have some sympathy for Harry but I'm realizing this interview has made me biased against him -- I question his motives about everything. For example, I read the other day he's working on a childrens book for kids who have lost a parent. The forward is this whole spiel about how he lost his mother, which could be just innocent or it could be that he is still completely broken by his own mother dying...over 20 years later. He isn't the first person to lose a parent, not even the first person to lose a parent tragically but it often seems he is so broken that he can't really see how his life has been much easier than it would have been otherwise. He just seems like a bitter broken man.

https://apnews.com/article/princess...prince-harry-fe343120b70c7c0893ff3f883e891dcf

But the other issue is that for most of the past 300 years, possibly longer, the person sitting on the throne was not in direct line to inherit the throne. This is why the Queen made the change in who is titled and prepared to take the throne ie. it will be one of George, Charlotte and Louis but we can't know which one for a very long time. Harry's position would make him regent if George inherited before his 18th birthday, which seems unlikely but both Charles and William had covid last year -- and William was actually sicker with it. It would take an act of parliament to change this, but there is talk of them swapping out Harry for Anne and under the circumstances I think they should do it.

 

[redrosesix]

Because the truth doesnt really matter. CBS wanted a juicy interview that would sell for millions of dollars. Which it did. And probably will sell even better because of lies. Every time a British tv show, shows some of the interview to explain certain claims, CBS will earn money.

And second, it was intended for the US market to give them an underdog story to get sympathy for the couple. In the US there will be no tv shows or hardly any tv shows to point out lies, because the US public doesnt care enough about H & M yet. If they were extremely important people caught on a lie, then it would be a thing, but they are not at that level. Maybe they will be in the future and then it will be relevant.

I've seen quite a few youtubers blurring out scenes from the interview or deleting them altogther to avoid paying CBS. They are going after every possible penny.

 

[snappy]

This.

I think this was possibly the worst part of the interview. And although I don't like that H and M made statements that were easily disproven, I think the editorial practices at Harpo are the bigger issue. There should have at least been a disclaimer that the allegations were opinion. They should not have deleted scenes from the interview just to make it as incendiary as possible, like Harry saying it wasn't the Queen or Prince Philip who made the remark to him (obviously there was a much longer conversation about that than what we saw but it must have contradicted what M said more than what we saw).

I think Harpo took advantage of the fact that the RF would not sue them for false and misleading statements. they won't go after the writers or producers of the movie that is going to be made about this chapter either, but I'll bet there is a disclaimer on the movie saying it is a fictionalized account.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/t...99-movie-in-the-works-at-lifetime/ar-BB1eVHYL

I never heard of those first two movies of the H&M saga. Did I miss something? a Trilogy? will there be a prequel? Good grief.

 

[redrosesix]

I never heard of those first two movies of the H&M saga. Did I miss something? a Trilogy? will there be a prequel? Good grief.

I hadn't heard of them either but apparently the first one is about how they met and their wedding...Harry and Meghan: A Royal Romance. Harry and Meghan: Becoming Royal was about the first year after that. The third one is Harry and Meghan: Escaping the Palace. I'm not expecting a balanced story line...I think it's going to follow the interview point by point.

In the back of my mind, I still think Harry is hoping for Harry and Meghan: Becoming King

 

[Karin1984]

I connected Harry's job announcement with Zara & Mike Tindall's new baby as stealing thunder. The Sun has written an article where they aimed at taking away the spotlight from Eugenie. Whose birthday was on the same day as the job announcement.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/14473776/meghan-harry-clashing/
It's an interesting list (and much longer than I remembered) where H&M announced something at very interesting points in time.
- Oct 18, pregnancy announcement at Eugenie's wedding.
- May 19, release extra wedding pictures on the day of Kate's big gardening project.
- Jan 20, announce Megxit the day before Kate's birthday
- Jan 20, Meghan promoting herself in Canada on the same day as William & Kate's first engagement of the year.
- Apr 20, announce Archewell on the same day as the historic Queen's pandemic speech.
- Jun 20, Meghan & Harry helping veteran's in LA coincided with William's birthday.
- Aug 20, Kate's babybank initiative gets a big press tour, the following day Harry's 'social media is evil' piece is published.
- Dec 20, William and Kate go to support key workers, Harry & Meghan announce their Spotify deal.
- Mar 21, Oprah interview coincides with Commonwealth day
- Mar 21, Harry's job announcement on the day of Eugenie's birthday.

There was also another time that's not in the list, but I do remember that one. As I googled the specifics, I came across another list, where there are more incidents where Harry or Meghan upstaged the senior royals.
- Apr 19, on Louis' 1st birthday Harry & Meghan released promo pictures of themselves in nature.
- Jul 19, Meghan meeting Beyonce at the Lion King premiere overshadowed Kate's role at Wimbledon.
- Oct 19, the ITV interview ("Not many people ask me if I am okay) aired right after William & Kate's political tour in Pakistan.
- Jan 20, Meghan posts pictures of her at a dog shelter on the same day as Kate is doing a tour to promote her children's work.

For the ones before Megxit was announced, I do wonder how this all happened, for the ones after, as they were still in their trial year for most of the time, I assume they still had access to, or got informed about the calendars of the other royals.

To be fair, I do think the Lion King premiere was a coincidence, and I am not sure how much Harry & Meghan could influence the timing of certain interviews, like ITV, and the 'social media is evil' publication. I do think could influence the charities and I do think the Oprah interview did premiere on Commonwealth day for a reason.
Not everything in this list was on the same day or the day after. Also one can wonder how much time Harry & Meghan (whether in or out Royal Family) should have to wait between certain engagements and events, although, there must be protocol for that as well. However, there are moments, where H&M could have waited, like why release extra wedding pictures or a cute Instagram post at a dog shelter to coincide with important initiatives by Kate, and why release promo pictures of yourself on Louis' first birthday?
(And announcing you are pregnant at someone else's wedding is always poor taste. No, it doesn't matter that it's a good time because all the family is together and you only have to tell it once)

 

[BayouQueen]

I'm really glad @Karin1984 posted the list of H&M's poorly timed announcements. The one that really got to me most was their big ITV interview when William and Kate were in Pakistan. That trip was a Big Deal -- large politically and actually quite dangerous. It was a huge security operation to have them there. William and Kate have three young children and they made that trip.
When I heard the whiny ITV interview, I was quite angry. The timing was way out of line. Unforgivable.

 

[Karin1984]

I'm really glad @Karin1984 posted the list of H&M's poorly timed announcements. The one that really got to me most was their big ITV interview when William and Kate were in Pakistan. That trip was a Big Deal -- large politically and actually quite dangerous. It was a huge security operation to have them there. William and Kate have three young children and they made that trip.
When I heard the whiny ITV interview, I was quite angry. The timing was way out of line. Unforgivable.

I just noticed there was another poorly timed announcement. The first one: Harry send out a press release about Meghan and the press in November 2016 which coincided with Charles/Camilla's diplomatic tour to the Middle East. The rest of their tour was overshadowed by Harry's press release.

While I can understand Harry's need to protect Meghan. However, I do think he had to see the bigger picture and the political implications this has. If they had waited a few days, at least till Charles & Camilla had ended their tour, it wouldn't have been so bad. And then he might have been able to talk to his father about it, instead of sending a 20 minute notification.