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

[mousefan73]

Just watched Piers Morgan by accident. He’s kinda a “not so nice person” and a loud outspoken Meghan hater. He did have a good point. How can Harry and Meghan expect us to believe the Bullying accusations are lies and not believe them but their accusations should automatically be accepted as truth. Can’t have it both ways.

 

[andyman8]

Nope. Just commenting on the 2 issues independently. I wouldn't expect anyone who's suicidal to drive themselves to the hospital.

So then what exactly are you saying? Harry shouldn't get a pass? I mean I guess, but it seems like he did more than the rest of the institution by removing his family from what clearly an unworkable arrangement?

 

[fortwildernessishome]

I have never been one to really follow the Royal Family, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs like many on here do.

What I find interesting though, is the majority of the posters on this thread don't like anything that Harry and Megan have said and done. I watched two talk shows today (both in the USA) and they were 100% behind Harry and Megan. One of the shows (Daily Blast Live) did a survey with a ticker on the bottom of the screen whether they were "team Harry of Megan" or "team Royal Family". it was something like 80% of Harry and Megan and 20% Royal family. From reading the comments on here, I just assumed it would be the opposite.

 

[Cheburashka]

By reading a little of this thread it seems like the Monarchy is the opposite of "symbols of unity" and "bring people together"!!

Well, clearly, Meghan and Harry, who are the ones causing this immense conflict, opted to leave the royal family and are not part of the Monarchy. They're definitely not focused on bringing people together.

The Monarchy spent yesterday bringing care and unity to the people of the Commonwealth, while Meghan & Harry slung mud at others on television.

 

[andyman8]

Just watched Piers Morgan by accident. He’s kinda a “not so nice person” and a loud outspoken Meghan hater. He did have a good point. How can Harry and Meghan expect us to believe the Bullying accusations are lies and not believe them but their accusations should automatically be accepted as truth. Can’t have it both ways.

I believe the bullying allegations came out well after the interview as taped, so they didn't address them in the interview.

I'm not saying that you should 100% immediately believe everything they said, but you shouldn't also dismiss everything they said immediately either, which is what a lot of people on here seem to be doing. Especially when it surrounds someone coming forward about thoughts of self-harm, to flippantly dismiss that is dangerous.

Mr. Morgan, to me, would have far more credibility if he hadn't bashed literally everything Meghan and Harry had done (down to Meghan's clothes) for years. I think there are legitimate critiques one could make of the interview -- while also not dismissing the meaty allegations -- but he has shown more interest in bashing them from day one seemingly because he just didn't like her. It's also worth noting he's been at the helm of an organization that has published a number of the more repugnant/below-the-belt stories that they referred to in the interview.

 

[Cheburashka]

I have never been one to really follow the Royal Family, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs like many on here do.

What I find interesting though, is the majority of the posters on this thread don't like anything that Harry and Megan have said and done. I watched two talk shows today (both in the USA) and they were 100% behind Harry and Megan. One of the shows (Daily Blast Live) did a survey with a ticker on the bottom of the screen whether they were "team Harry of Megan" or "team Royal Family". it was something like 80% of Harry and Megan and 20% Royal family. From reading the comments on here, I just assumed it would be the opposite.

Americans tend to be less knowledgeable about the British royal family, understandably, which is why it's easier for Meghan to effectively lie to them and manipulate their opinions.

 

[Tink-osophy]

By reading a little of this thread it seems like the Monarchy is the opposite of "symbols of unity" and "bring people together"!!

LOL. I think that's more to do with the whole 'chatting about things online' thing!!

In reality, the monarchy is much bigger than H&M and there are, arguably, lots of ways it does unite a country and encourage patriotism - but I won't go there!

 

[Tink-osophy]

I have never been one to really follow the Royal Family, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs like many on here do.

What I find interesting though, is the majority of the posters on this thread don't like anything that Harry and Megan have said and done. I watched two talk shows today (both in the USA) and they were 100% behind Harry and Megan. One of the shows (Daily Blast Live) did a survey with a ticker on the bottom of the screen whether they were "team Harry of Megan" or "team Royal Family". it was something like 80% of Harry and Megan and 20% Royal family. From reading the comments on here, I just assumed it would be the opposite.

It's easier to persuade a foreign country, who don't know any details first-hand. You can tell people who don't have an initial understanding whatever you like, especially if you make it sound like escaping a racist prison.

 

[mamamia2005]

It will be interesting to see what the opinion is from the public in the UK when the interview has been seen if full. There have been snippets on the news and various TV programmes throughout the day, and articles in the newspapers online ( I think the printed newspapers had gone to press before the interview had been broadcast in the US).

 

[Karin1984]

By reading a little of this thread it seems like the Monarchy is the opposite of "symbols of unity" and "bring people together"!!

I think it's very clear in this thread that royals aren't people ;-)

 

[cabanafrau]

I have seen it happen with every single interracial family I’ve known and in a large number of the POC families in my circle, as well as in schools and workplaces where people have been either rewarded or denigrated based on the darkness of their skin. I’m well past the point of having any tolerance for it.

I am aware that can be a problem, and it is ugly. It's even caused strife, wars and genocide on the African continent without the interracial component.
As I said, I've been at gatherings of family and in discussions with close friends where there was speculation about who an expected baby might look like. It was absolutely not out of concern or valuing skin tone -- merely curiosity about how the genetics would play out.

I have a cousin with three children, two of which have darker skin. One of those children and the child with lighter skin have dark brown eyes, while the other child with darker skin has greenish blue eyes. Two have more afro type hair, one more similar to maternal grandpa. Another cousin was also in an interracial marriage (now divorced) and both of his children take more after their mother's looks, including darker skin. If you had family members write comments on slips of paper about each kid without naming the kid and then played guess who this is about, you'd be trying to pick up clues based upon if the comment mentioned gender or mentioned a specific talent or interest, because I don't think you'd get comments about skin tone or looks. BTW, the conversations about what the unborn babies might look like came from family members on both sides, chatting with each other and speculating together. Everybody was excited there was another baby on the way. It wasn't really much different than the conversations in my husband's mother's extended family, who are always dying to know who's going to be the next redhead in the family.

 

[Karin1984]

I believe the bullying allegations came out well after the interview as taped, so they didn't address them in the interview.

The claims of bullying already existed. Only it emerged again before the interview. Very conveniently ;-)
After her marriage the title 'Duchess Difficult' came very quickly. The relationship between Meghan and her staff had a rocky start. I am not exactly sure when, but I think it was late 2018, early 2019, so before Megxit, when in rapid succession several people left the service of Harry & Meghan.
The bully claims weren't new, they just weren't named as such. It is now that the e-mail from Knauff was released into the public.

 

[snappy]

I am aware that can be a problem, and it is ugly. It's even caused strife, wars and genocide on the African continent without the interracial component.
As I said, I've been at gatherings of family and in discussions with close friends where there was speculation about who an expected baby might look like. It was absolutely not out of concern or valuing skin tone -- merely curiosity about how the genetics would play out.

I have a cousin with three children, two of which have darker skin. One of those children and the child with lighter skin have dark brown eyes, while the other child with darker skin has greenish blue eyes. Two have more afro type hair, one more similar to maternal grandpa. Another cousin was also in an interracial marriage (now divorced) and both of his children take more after their mother's looks, including darker skin. If you had family members write comments on slips of paper about each kid without naming the kid and then played guess who this is about, you'd be trying to pick up clues based upon if the comment mentioned gender or mentioned a specific talent or interest, because I don't think you'd get comments about skin tone or looks. BTW, the conversations about what the unborn babies might look like came from family members on both sides, chatting with each other and speculating together. Everybody was excited there was another baby on the way. It wasn't really much different than the conversations in my husband's mother's extended family, who are always dying to know who's going to be the next redhead in the family.

I was just going to post about our red headed youngest, the only child, grandchild, great grandchild, on either side of the family. There has been tons of speculation about how that came about. She even surprised us. Think Anya-Taylor Joy from The queen’s Gambit series on Netflix. Except fair with blue eyes and no red wigs.

 

[Cheburashka]

But the archbishop has some explaining to do if he performed a marriage rites without witnesses and a second ceremony for show. He performs religious ceremonies not civil. Two different animals.

I very much doubt that pre-wedding wedding even happened. Even if something like that did happen, I agree with PPs that it likely fell in the category of blessing rather than an actual marriage, which requires witnesses, a chance for people to object, etc.

Naturally, the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't going to wade into all this mud and issue his own statement, so again, Meghan knows she can say what she likes without being challenged. Anyone notice a pattern here?

 

[neverlandsky]

The eldest child regardless of sex precedes their siblings. Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis we're bestowed their titles because if anything happens to Prince George, they are next in line with succession - Queen - Charles - William - George - Charlotte - Louis. They are also next in line with succession until Prince George has his first child. Making the odds of Prince Harry & his son Archie ever becoming King slim to none.

 

[Karin1984]

I have never been one to really follow the Royal Family, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs like many on here do.

What I find interesting though, is the majority of the posters on this thread don't like anything that Harry and Megan have said and done. I watched two talk shows today (both in the USA) and they were 100% behind Harry and Megan. One of the shows (Daily Blast Live) did a survey with a ticker on the bottom of the screen whether they were "team Harry of Megan" or "team Royal Family". it was something like 80% of Harry and Megan and 20% Royal family. From reading the comments on here, I just assumed it would be the opposite.

This is really a case of who do you ask. In this case your nationality and whether or not you grew up in a kingdom, know what a royal family is about, and if you have followed this news is vital to the outcome of a survey.
Doing an unbiased survey on this interview is almost impossible.

 

[andyman8]

I am aware that can be a problem, and it is ugly. It's even caused strife, wars and genocide on the African continent without the interracial component.
As I said, I've been at gatherings of family and in discussions with close friends where there was speculation about who an expected baby might look like. It was absolutely not out of concern or valuing skin tone -- merely curiosity about how the genetics would play out.

I have a cousin with three children, two of which have darker skin. One of those children and the child with lighter skin have dark brown eyes, while the other child with darker skin has greenish blue eyes. Two have more afro type hair, one more similar to maternal grandpa. Another cousin was also in an interracial marriage (now divorced) and both of his children take more after their mother's looks, including darker skin. If you had family members write comments on slips of paper about each kid without naming the kid and then played guess who this is about, you'd be trying to pick up clues based upon if the comment mentioned gender or mentioned a specific talent or interest, because I don't think you'd get comments about skin tone or looks. BTW, the conversations about what the unborn babies might look like came from family members on both sides, chatting with each other and speculating together. Everybody was excited there was another baby on the way. It wasn't really much different than the conversations in my husband's mother's extended family, who are always dying to know who's going to be the next redhead in the family.

I was just going to post about our red headed youngest, the only child, grandchild, great grandchild, on either side of the family. There has been tons of speculation about how that came about. She even surprised us.

There is a difference between quiet speculation and "concerns" (which was the word that was used) about the potential complexions of your child's skin. Personally, I think even those type of questions are best kept to yourself. But either way, you're going tho have a tough time convincing me that there aren't racist undertones in those "concerns." You can choose to be skeptical of the claim, but if it was indeed said, that's a big problem.

 

[BayouQueen]

I saw some article awhile back where it was claimed that Meghan was asked, when she hired a new PR company, how much attention she wanted to invite. According to the article, she said, "I want to break the internet."
She certainly has accomplished that. lol

 

[Cheburashka]

if it was indeed said, that's a big problem.

Indeed. It is a very serious accusation. Which makes it a very serious wrong for the couple to accuse a member of the royal family of saying that without naming names. This way, the entire royal family is put under the shadow of racism, because they're now all under suspicion, since they won't name names. I think this was Meghan's intention: it hurts more people this way.

 

[mousefan73]

I have never been one to really follow the Royal Family, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs like many on here do.

What I find interesting though, is the majority of the posters on this thread don't like anything that Harry and Megan have said and done. I watched two talk shows today (both in the USA) and they were 100% behind Harry and Megan. One of the shows (Daily Blast Live) did a survey with a ticker on the bottom of the screen whether they were "team Harry of Megan" or "team Royal Family". it was something like 80% of Harry and Megan and 20% Royal family. From reading the comments on here, I just assumed it would be the opposite.

I have never been one to really follow the Royal Family, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs like many on here do.

What I find interesting though, is the majority of the posters on this thread don't like anything that Harry and Megan have said and done. I watched two talk shows today (both in the USA) and they were 100% behind Harry and Megan. One of the shows (Daily Blast Live) did a survey with a ticker on the bottom of the screen whether they were "team Harry of Megan" or "team Royal Family". it was something like 80% of Harry and Megan and 20% Royal family. From reading the comments on here, I just assumed it would be the opposite.

Most people, in the UK too were Harry and Meghan. Them leaving and all that happened after that is what turned most Brits off.
I think in the US they are right now more popular after this interview as:
1. Americans love giving the finger to any old, archiac institutionand say screw tradition.
2. Race
3. Lack of knowledge of the Royal system.
4. As somebody quoted a few posts back. Victimism is more popular than self-sacrifie or duty. If one is offended they are automatic a victim who needs protection, even if the reason was not wrong.

Example: They make accusations that Archie was refused a Prince title and protection based on his potential skin tone. Where unless we know things we dont know its Royal protocol that Archie would only get a prince title once Charles is King.

Harry was also a loved favorite since the death of his Mother in the US, more so than William.. simply that the image of him at her coffin was more promoted that William. He was little and looked more vunerable. And he was the "fun" prince. People Mag loved him.