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

[mom2rtk]

It’s not on her to “fix” her mental health. See my previous post. You can loathe everything else about her, but when it comes to mental health, empathy and compassion is the way to go, not just for her but anyone watching who might have related to what she is saying. They’re watching the world react too.

But she told Harry about it. When I ask what "she" did to get help, I'm really referring to the couple. It's an indictment of the extended family not to fine her help, but her husband gets a pass?

 

[Karin1984]

A great leader in a democracy can also be a symbol of unity. That is BS they are feeding people to justify their existence! Oh well, time to move away from this thread.

Yeah, those leaders come by in abundance nowadays (disclaimer: this is not a remark against any specific leader of state, I think that a lot of EU countries get more divided in elections nowadays. It gets more and more us versus them and if you are not for us, you are against us. I think this is an international trend.)

 

[cabanafrau]

Found them completely disingenuous and not credible. I'm sure there are bits and bobs of actual facts in there, and I have no doubt they suffered some slings and arrows and everything wasn't to their satisfaction, but what they did was done purely out of malice and to inflict tremendous damage. They even made darn sure to provide themselves with even more cover by making it crystal clear they have no beef with the two most geriatric members most likely to have a health crisis or kick the bucket which would provoke a public backlash against H & M. They are very vested in making sure their interests and their feelings are well served by the narrative they push.

Their feelings seem to be at the heart of everything they said, each and every time they took aim that's what they loaded with. Conveniently facts that could illuminate the real issues and flesh things out and give context somehow would have crossed a line. Kate was lovely and owned her wrong and of course was forgiven by the beneficent Meghan. Yet the magnanimous forgiveness doesn't extend to simply saying, no, the press reports of me making Kate cry simply never happened. It's entirely possible revealing the facts of what actually happened, what actually was said might wind up with reasonable people reaching the opinion that yes, Meghan may have cried in response to something Kate said, but crying wasn't a reasonable response. Kate may very well have chalked it up to majorly anxious bride, tried to smooth Meghan's nerves and feelings, sent flowers and a similar note and let it go. Telling the story the way it has been then puts Kate on the hook for not disputing it. When convenient Kate is somehow exempt from being a trapped royal family member and has independent access to go to the press and make sure they know Meghan did nothing and it was bad, bad, Kate in the wrong all along.

Why am I not surprised even one iota that the turning point happened on their royal tour? Of course it makes sense that the family entirely freaked out when they realized that Meghan did the job better than any of them. That's not facts, it's once again H & M's feelings, their perception of how something is. Seems like their tour got the same kind of public reception and reviews that William and Kate and early Charles and Diana tours got, curious and enthusiastic crowds and press to see the newlyweds in action, absolutely nothing so demonstratively better to give anyone the idea that Meghan is so superbly skilled that she outshone anyone.

If I had to guess the real change, the turning point, may have been receiving the news sometime after that tour that Archie would not receive the title. Was it a racist decision? Was it Charles pressing hard for how he sees the monarchy moving forward? There have been discussion for years that he intends to dramatically shrink the monarchy, supposedly with pushback coming from a single corner -- Andrew. Seems kind of a harsh and mean decision, cold. Kind of fits with a man who even as a small child was kept at arms length to his parents, with the monarchy always taking precedence. Maybe Charles has taken a look at the situation surrounding his siblings and is attempting to correct course to head off similar issues down the line in the family. Coincidence or convenience that the family member H & M are publicly said to be tight with outside of the Queen and Phillip just happens to be Andrew's daughter?

The idea that Meghan and Archie were to have or had no security doesn't seem to be borne out by the factual event of Meghan's solo visit to a market while on royal tour was abruptly and inexplicably ended by her security detail.

True to form they bolstered their recounting with allusions to Diana and her difficulties and the tragedy. For the coup de grace they leveled a claim of racism against an anonymous family member, then subsequently hasten to make sure the two most senior are exonerated, IMO solely because they are extremely senior. If you're going to level that charge and not name the person out of a very small list of candidates, at least give a full accounting of exactly what awful things were actually said, exactly what was said. If you're going to share it with the public, tell the public the plain facts and allow the public to decide for themselves if it's reasonable to take the conversation as racist, or decide for themselves if the comments merely addressed the race factor in the context of a conversation about the baby on the way and Harry FELT it was racist. I've been in conversations with family and friends where precisely that subject was speculated about in regards to babies that weren't yet born. The parents themselves have participated in the speculation purely out of curiosity and excitement -- and have done the same with their subsequent children on the way. (Incidentally, some of the siblings have come out very similar looking to each other, others favoring one parent/race and a sibling(s) favoring the opposite. The conversation(s?) Harry referenced might not have been so benign, or they could have. I have no idea where the facts are. H & M have so much history in my mind of being short on facts, lots of focus about how they feel about things and flat-out attempting to shape public opinion to their will that I don't take their statements at face value without questions anymore. If you're going to moan about being trapped, not being heard and having facts, words and actions twisted against you, don't level nebulous claims -- then say the people you're blaming are trapped, and oh yeah, you love them oh so much and always will.

 

[nkereina]

But she said they took her driver’s license,passport and her keys so she couldn’t go herself. Don’t forget she couldn’t call an Uber either. Weren’t they living in there own house than?

I have seen other Royals driving why was everything taken?

I don't know anything about that, but assuming that its true, why couldn't Harry intervene or call his driver or whatever they do? I believe the Royals told her the optics of seeking mental health counseling would not be good, and perhaps they wouldn't assist her with it because of that, but that doesn't mean she couldn't go find it on her own if she truly needed the help. Where there is a will, there is a way, unless you're in prison and she was not. Evidently (and thankfully) she worked through those issues on her own, because she seemed to be talking about it in the past tense.

 

[mom2rtk]

They even made darn sure to provide themselves with even more cover by making it crystal clear they have no beef with the two most geriatric members most likely to have a health crisis or kick the bucket which would provoke a public backlash against H & M.

Further evidenced by the fact that they didn't offer the exoneration of the Queen and Prince until today (keeping in mind this was apparently filmed before Prince Philip entered the hospital).

 

[snappy]

I don't know anything about that, but assuming that its true, why couldn't Harry intervene or call his driver or whatever they do? I believe the Royals told her the optics of seeking mental health counseling would not be good, and perhaps they wouldn't assist her with it because of that, but that doesn't mean she couldn't go find it on her own if she truly needed the help. Where there is a will, there is a way, unless you're in prison and she was not. Evidently (and thankfully) she worked through those issues on her own, because she seemed to be talking about it in the past tense.

She just doesn’t strike me as someone who suffers in silence.

 

[neverlandsky]

Oooh dang .... “If you need to air your grievances you go to a therapist”

“ by stating your grievances worldwide to millions of people you’re not solving the problem you’re making at worst”

Agree. Why poke around the hornets nest when you’ve already been stung several times. There’s no upper hand to be had here. You just walk away and try to move on the best you can.

 

[NotUrsula]

But she said they took her driver’s license,passport and her keys so she couldn’t go herself. Don’t forget she couldn’t call an Uber either. Weren’t they living in there own house than?

I have seen other Royals driving why was everything taken?

Not to mention that Harry could have driven her anywhere that she wanted to go.

To me, the most obvious solution is that she was seeing an obstetrician anyway, and probably weekly in the latter stages of pregnancy; THAT is the most logical person to have helped her get urgent mental health services, since a physician is bound to rules of confidentiality. (And if she actually DID ask for such help, that physician won't be saying anything about it now, for the same reason.)

Edited to add: FTR, having dealt with the particular problem of depression in pregnancy, I will say that she probably did have some difficulty getting the people around her to take her seriously if she felt depressed; most people tend to brush off the possibility of clinical depression in pregnancy. (Post-partum is different.) It can wear you down, and after a while you tend to stop trying to get people to understand. However, in this case her husband was clearly told, and her husband clearly believed her, and I really have trouble believing that her husband in that case would not have approached her obstetrician with his concerns, even if she was far gone enough to be convinced the doctor might not listen.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

But she said they took her driver’s license,passport and her keys so she couldn’t go herself. Don’t forget she couldn’t call an Uber either. Weren’t they living in there own house than?

I have seen other Royals driving why was everything taken?

One possible explanation is that she was considered sectionable under the Mental Health Act. Diagnosed with a mental disorder, a danger to herself or others etc. She herself has referred to being suicidal and a mental illness would not only explain but also excuse much of her ‘bad’ behaviour etc. It would also oblige her to give up her driving licence. See below.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/psychiatric-disorders-assessing-fitness-to-drive

 

[TLSnell1981]

Supposedly the comment regarding Archie's skin tone came from the wife who was moved out of KP to make room for H&M? This person had no say in Archie's title. And neither does the Queen. It would be up to Charles if and when he becomes king. H&M turned down the title of earl so don't know why they are carrying on about Archie not being a prince.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

No, actually. I did the same thing, and in both cases, definitely a wedding. In our case, we did it for 2 reasons, one legal and one sentimental. We were traveling (domestically) to get married where most of my family live, but could not logistically manage to apply for and get a marriage license in that state due to mandated waiting periods. Also, my DH's grandparents were too old and disabled to travel. So, we got a marriage license in the state where we live, had a private civil ceremony here the following day with only his family present, and a religious ceremony in a different state 3 days later, using the same marriage license both times. The Church accepted the license for validation of the religious ceremony, and was able to only because a civil ceremony had already been performed in the state where the license was issued. In H&M's case, the first ceremony was performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury but may not have been validated by a license; in fact probably was not, or someone would have noticed the license being filed with an earlier date and let the cat out of the bag.

Please fix your quote. I didn’t say that bit about their wedding. Those are someone else’s words.

 

[starry_solo]

No. We don't have cable TV. Just Netflix and Disney+. Cut the cable cord a looong time ago.

you don’t have an antenna that can catch the station? I don’t have cable either, I catch stations with an antenna On the top of the TV. Disney + is the only streaming service I subscribe to.

 

[snappy]

I had not heard they turned down the earl title. Does holding out for a different title happen often?

 

[mousefan73]

I had not heard they turned down the earl title. Does holding out for a different title happen often?

One can actually have many times. They all do.

 

[mousefan73]

Just watched it now unfortunately dubbed in German . Commentator had a good point. He finds it hard to believe she was not able to get help. He basically said half of Americans have a therapist or know somebody who does. And seeing she is from LA/ Hollywood there is no way she couldn’t have quietly gotten anyone of her famous well connected friends to set her up.

 

[andyman8]

But she told Harry about it. When I ask what "she" did to get help, I'm really referring to the couple. It's an indictment of the extended family not to fine her help, but her husband gets a pass?

It just sounded like in your post that you were suggesting that she didn’t need a driver’s license to drive herself to the hospital. I also think that the license and passport story was more to symbolize the level of control they had over them rather than to focus on the minutia of it. It sounds like the “Firm” had way more over control over them than most of us would expect/be comfortable with.

As far as Harry goes, of course he doesn’t get a pass but neither does the “Firm” or family who allegedly did nothing to help. I don’t think we can just assume that Harry could’ve just called a car and taken her the hospital or a therapist. Based on the interview, it seemed clear that he felt like he needed to work within the system. From Harry’s perspective, when she needed help, he asked the system for help and the system repeatedly denied his request. At that point, if they couldn’t get help within the system, he began figuring out how to exit the system to protect his wife. With that in mind, I think my bigger question becomes why didn’t the system do anything or offer any assistance. Certainly they had the money and connections to get her the very best care. Like I said, do they get a pass? And who are we to question if she was even having those thoughts in the first place, as some here have done?

I understand some folks really don’t like, and that’s fine, but when it comes to an issue like this one in particular, it would be nice if people could put their personal feelings aside and say “everyone deserves to be heard and helped, and they should’ve done more to help her.” Not even for MM but for all those who may find themselves in situations where their families aren’t helping/accepting of their mental health problems.

 

[stitch'sgirl]

I am also confused on how Meghan calls her Kate. From my understanding she is known as Catherine. It’s the Press that calls her Kate.

I was also surprised that she called Sarah Ferguson "Fergie". Do family members actually call her that? You would think she would have said "Harry's Aunt Sarah came out as well" or "The Duchess of York helped me practice a quick curtsy". Even if members of the family call her Fergie, she is newer to the family and would be better to error on the conservative side of respect.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

I had not heard they turned down the earl title. Does holding out for a different title happen often?

You can hold multiple titles at the same time. So Prince Charles is The Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles, Baron of Renfrew and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. Prince William is His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge, The Earl of Strathearn in Scotland and Baron Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland. Prince Harry is the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

 

[Karin1984]

Just watched it now unfortunately dubbed in German . Commentator had a good point. He finds it hard to believe she was not able to get help. He basically said half of Americans have a therapist or know somebody who does. And seeing she is from LA/ Hollywood there is no way she couldn’t have quietly gotten anyone of her famous well connected friends to set her up.

They dubbed it? Oh wow, I thought that for these things they would just subtitle. They did work fast. A 2 hour interview already done. But that's German efficiency, I guess ;-)
I saw the list of requirements for tv networks to be allowed to air the interview, there were no edits allowed. I wonder if they thought about this. As intonation and tone of voice are incredibly important in an interview like this.

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

I would say that you have a good handle on the reality of the spectacle that the monarchy is. What I'm not sure of is whether you absorbed all of that from the interview. Seems like you've been a 'watcher' for quite some time.

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure how much of a watcher I am. I have been interested in how historically Queen Elizabeth's reign came to be, and how that's affected her children and grandchildren.

As I understand it, she was born with the rank of Princess because she was basically in the same position Archie was born into. When she was born, Elizabeth's father was the "spare" in the family, just as Harry in this generation was. (Meghan and Harry indicated in the interview last night that were confused and hurt when, contrary to tradition, Archie would not be a prince or have the security that goest with that title, and they were not given an explanation as to why that would be. Coupled with family speculation about the skin color of Harry's future baby, it was reasonable for H&M to wonder if that decision has something to do with Meghan's race, and to feel unsupported.)

David, was born to be King, but when he threw the country into a constitutional crisis by abdicating, Elizabeth's father had to take over. He was not at all suited to the role - he was the one who stuttered and did not have a lot of confidence, but he and his whole family stepped up. Despite being in incredible personal danger from an almost certain invasion by Germany in the early part of the war, they did not evacuate, or even send Elizabeth and Margaret to Canada for the young girls' safety. They stayed mostly in bombed out London, and with Winston Churchill, was instrumental in holding the morale of the country together in WWII. As a young woman, Princess Elizabeth apparently hoped to live her preferred life as a country horsewoman until her father died after a long life, and she finally became queen. But that was not to be. Her beloved father died of lung cancer when he was relatively young and she was only 25, something I understand the family always felt was partially the result of the stress he was under during the war.

When very young Elizabeth made a vow to her country that she would remain committed to their service for the whole of her life and she has kept that vow. I have a lot of respect for the the Queen for that. She has never wavered in what she has seen as putting duty first. But I can also see how, for any member of that family, being born primarily to fulfill a role, and not to simply to be loved for the individual you are, would be a really weird, and sometimes lonely position to be in. No matter how loving the people within that structure might want to be, who could live as a product of generations of those expectations and not become a little emotionally dysfunctional?

I don't see anyone as a "bad guy" in the British royal family. I see a group of people who live in a gilded cage, charged with the scary responsibility of making sure they are not the ones to end hundreds of years of a monarchy, doing the best they personally know how to do. Sometimes personal problems can best be understood within the context of a dysfunctional structure, rather than stemming from the screw-ups of the individuals themselves. The fact that Harry and Meghan report feeling hurt and unsupported doesn't surprise me. It's always true that we tend to compare our "insides" with everyone else's "outsides". No matter how glamorous their lives look from the outside, or how spoiled people may believe them to be given their advantages, I believe them when they say that they're doing the best they can with the only lives they've got. I also give their entire family that same benefit of the doubt.