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

[Princessclab]

Except a mama knows a little girl may get blisters without socks or tights. Not to mention it's a preference of the Queen. Some want to live or die on every hill.

Yeah, shows Meghan's immaturity showed up early. Contolling and always having your own way.
Temper tantrums are usually by 4-5year olds.....

 

[TLSnell1981]

Yeah, shows Meghan's immaturity showed up early. Contolling and always having your own way.h
Temper tantrums are usually by 4-5year olds.....

Three years later and she's still upset over tights? Harry better take notes...

 

[Princessclab]

But grandma is THE Queen. A very unique situation for sure! It always amazes me how some have a difficult time respecting protocol and/or their elders aka authority figures. Megs wanted all the trappings but none of the rules? And still... little girls may get blisters without socks or tights.

Really good point.
IMO, accepting traditions of the family that you are marrying into is just respectful, no matter if they are Royalty or not, baring that in this situation, they are Royalty with many years of traditions. You may not agree but who do you think you are putting up a fuss regarding something that really isn't your call?
H&M have been disrespectful to the RF wanting everything their own way.
Of course H&M will think things are disrespecful when thay can't have their own way with things.

 

[Princessclab]

It would seem your bias is strong. Nowhere in there did I say Meghan was a victim. I said it couldn't be laid exclusively at her feet like so many wanted to. By definition, that would include her.

But since we're discussing it and you seem to think you know how I feel about this, I'll be clear so there are no more misjudgments.

Do I think Meghan is innocent? No. Do I think she told the entire truth during the interview? No. Do I think there was truth in there? Yes. Just like I would say for the BRF. And here is the fun part - while differing in what they each took from a situation, they can be both telling the truth. Misunderstanding, defensiveness, misspoken words can lead to two people walking away from a situation with completely different feelings about what happened, who was at fault and who was hurt. And two people can be hurt by the same situation.

What I do take issue with is people, especially here, thinking they have the right to discredit somebody's trauma. And we don't get to do that. Just because she didn't react the way we think she should have or assume we know what was the best treatment for her mental health doesn't mean it isn't true for her. And for all the people who think she's lying because she didn't handle it the way they thought she should, shame on you. Be thankful you've never been in a place that dark. Because let me tell you, it doesn't matter how many people are in your circle. It doesn't matter how wealthy you are. That feeling of helplessness and feeling alone goes beyond all of that. And asking for help isn't as easy as so many on here want to make it. And guess what - she'll never see all these comments that are being made. But those struggling with mental illness and depression will and you (general you) will have made it that much worse. So kuddos up there on your high horse.

I also take great issue with people feeling they can diagnose her with personality disorders on the internet. I know that kind of stuff gets thrown around a lot and not just on this topic, but it's wrong and dangerous to keep doing.

There have been fun conversations here, even when they've been disagreements. There is a lot of history to be learned. But let's be clear, the only people who know the truth are H&M and those in the inner circle of the BRF. So people who claim to know more than others because they've researched it is ridiculous as that's how anybody with an opinion has gotten their information. There are also some on here who's sole purpose of responding is to continue to vilely dump on H&M and it's gotten old. And their obsession with it actually speaks more about them.

I don't care if people like Meghan. Or Harry. I don't care if they think she is the worst person who walked the face of the Earth. I do care when people dismiss mental health. Or insinuate that it should be kept a dirty little secret.

Edited for misspelling

Clearly you did not look at the big picture but, ok.
Granted we have only seen one side of H&M, but what was said in the interview did not seem rationale and was contradictory.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I do think there was always the potential for "conflict" between Kate and Meghan.
Kate, William and Harry always seemed quite a happy trio, doing official engagements together etc.
Was Kate a bit jealous of there being another woman on the scene? (And I don't mean because there was anything romantic between Harry and Kate! Just that he probably used to make quite a fuss of Kate being the only woman in the trio)
Did Meghan have the perfect Kate shoved down her throat from the get go?
Kate possibly tried to give Meghan the benefit of her experience of having been involved with the royal family for a number of years - and Meghan being a strong, vocal, independent woman did not take kindly to that.

It would definitely be difficult to support someone who didn't want to be helped.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

So, you never humoured your grandmother's fashion pet peeves on her turf? I never knew my grandmothers, but my mother (like the Queen's) had plenty of opinions, and if you didn't want to hear an earful, you just avoided giving her the ammunition. Once I got past the teen rebellion stage I found it much less stressful to just go along to get along on clothing choices; fashion at my Mom's house just wasn't the hill I wanted to die on.

Members of the working royal family are being compensated by the Crown when they make public appearances, so you might try to consider it an office dress code, because that is what it is. She feels it's about dressing professionally and respectfully, and being careful about unintentionally offending the people who come to see public appearances. Yes, part of it is her personal preference (the wedge shoe rule comes to mind), and some of her perceptions about what is "decent" hark back to the 1950's, but you also have to realize that her own mother was much more draconian about "the rules", and the present Queen humoured the Queen Mother's choices long past the point when most women would. She has loosened the rules over the years; for instance, she no longer insists on gloves or girdles for anyone other than herself. I guarantee you she finds the idea of bare legs in public distasteful because like all Englishwomen of her generation, she was raised to think that bare legs in public were louche. (Remember all those stories about women painting fake seams down their legs during WW2 because stockings were scarce? They were ashamed of being barelegged because they were taught that a grown woman going out that way was going out half-dressed, so they used makeup and kohl pencil to fake it.) The "tights" rule doesn't really require tights, as stockings are fine as well, and coloured tights are OK, too, but the rest of the list is really preference built up over 8 decades of endless public appearances. She knows what styles have high potential to accidentally embarrass the wearer. (For instance, while she doesn't care for dark nail polish, she also has the experience to know that dark polish makes a broken nail much more glaringly obvious when you're shaking 100 hands.) The prejudice against black in the daytime is partly a holdover from the War, when it was considered sad, but also is practical; black ages badly with frequent dry cleaning, and it shows lint.

Lol, what? No, I didn’t humor my grandmothers’ fashion pet peeves because, if they had any, they never expressed them to me. Why on earth would they have any reason to tell me what to wear, even as a child, but as an adult?! The concept is so unbelievably bizarre to me. I can’t imagine ever expecting that another adult should dress themselves according to my liking for any reason. Ever. So, so strange.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes it seems hard to win with Meghan, no slight is too petty!

Plus, it's bad if you don't tell her how she is supposed to behave ("nobody told me to curtsy to the Queen!"); but also bad if you do tell her how to behave ("don't tell me how the children are expected to dress!"), seems there is just no winning.

Kind of like, her dad taking family squabbles to the media is evil....but her taking family squabbles to the media is liberating?

Good luck Harry - I doubt he has ever won a marital argument and never will.

 

[Princessclab]

Are you saying the culture in the UK is to never question the system? You are to just accept that everything was done perfectly the first time and should never be examined or updated with the times? They’d still be burning people at the stake if that were the case. Why should royal protocols be above question or updating? If they aren’t willing to ever bend or change on even the smallest issues, won’t they eventually end up completely out of touch with the people they serve? That was my whole point. Pantyhose are such an insignificant thing, why insist on making, or rather keeping, a rule about it? Interest in the royal family, or the desire to continue funding their existence, may start to slip if younger generations start viewing them as some bizarre, unrecognizable entity with old, outdated rules and ways that they can’t relate to or see the point in having around. I would never expect the royal institution to ever become lax or informal, but they do need to move with the times if they wish to stay relevant. And, as has already been discussed, younger generations might already be losing interest. Pantyhose have already been out of style for thirty years — it might be time to let that rule go.

Alot of 'nope' here. Younger generations for many generations have thought traditions were outdated and that the RF family will be irrelevent. They are still greatly beloved.
Somethings have changed but not always the small issues that are sensationalized, they are not necessarily insignificant.
BTW, panthose are not out of style at all. It just depends on how you choose to dress. They are very common in the corporate world and with people who want or it is expected to not always dress casual for one reason or another. It can be how one presents themself.
They should not be uncomfortable either if you bought the right size....lol. I don't mind wearing them at all. JMO.

 

[snappy]

So, you never humoured your grandmother's fashion pet peeves on her turf? I never knew my grandmothers, but my mother (like the Queen's) had plenty of opinions, and if you didn't want to hear an earful, you just avoided giving her the ammunition. Once I got past the teen rebellion stage I found it much less stressful to just go along to get along on clothing choices; fashion at my Mom's house just wasn't the hill I wanted to die on.

Members of the working royal family are being compensated by the Crown when they make public appearances, so you might try to consider it an office dress code, because that is what it is. She feels it's about dressing professionally and respectfully, and being careful about unintentionally offending the people who come to see public appearances. Yes, part of it is her personal preference (the wedge shoe rule comes to mind), and some of her perceptions about what is "decent" hark back to the 1950's, but you also have to realize that her own mother was much more draconian about "the rules", and the present Queen humoured the Queen Mother's choices long past the point when most women would. She has loosened the rules over the years; for instance, she no longer insists on gloves or girdles for anyone other than herself. I guarantee you she finds the idea of bare legs in public distasteful because like all Englishwomen of her generation, she was raised to think that bare legs in public were louche. (Remember all those stories about women painting fake seams down their legs during WW2 because stockings were scarce? They were ashamed of being barelegged because they were taught that a grown woman going out that way was going out half-dressed, so they used makeup and kohl pencil to fake it.) The "tights" rule doesn't really require tights, as stockings are fine as well, and coloured tights are OK, too, but the rest of the list is really preference built up over 8 decades of endless public appearances. She knows what styles have high potential to accidentally embarrass the wearer. (For instance, while she doesn't care for dark nail polish, she also has the experience to know that dark polish makes a broken nail much more glaringly obvious when you're shaking 100 hands.) The prejudice against black in the daytime is partly a holdover from the War, when it was considered sad, but also is practical; black ages badly with frequent dry cleaning, and it shows lint.

I totally get the bolded part. I called it “ go with the flow”. Am I possibly aging myself with that?

 

[RamblingMad]

I totally get the bolded part. I called it “ go with the flow”. Am I possibly aging myself with that?

Dressing up isn't a big deal. You do it on cruise ships. You do it for weddings and funerals. And you do it for work. It's just clothes. No big deal. And it keeps the dry cleaners and suit makers in business.

My friends who rebelled and got lower paying jobs because they didn't want to dress up are now mad that most work places have lowered their dress code to match their rebellious look. Never give up an opportunity over clothes. It's not worth it.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Clearly you did not look at the big picture but, ok.
Granted we have only seen one side of H&M, but what was said in the interview did not seem rationale and was contradictory.

I looked at the big picture. That doesn’t negate any of my comments. And you prove exactly what I was saying.

 

[snappy]

Dressing up isn't a big deal. You do it on cruise ships. You do it for weddings and funerals. And you do it for work. It's just clothes. No big deal. And it keeps the dry cleaners and suit makers in business.

My friends who rebelled and got lower paying jobs because they didn't want to dress up are now mad that most work places have lowered their dress code to match their rebellious look. Never give up an opportunity over clothes. It's not worth it.

I did actually dress up more before the Covid hit the fan last year. Clothes, makeup, even jewelry. I now have to get back into that mode. Hopefully I will have somewhere to go soon too, other than the beach. I have WDW in my site right now. Although I am not sure I really need makeup yet due to the continuing mask thing.

 

[tinatark]

Not sure I believed about 75% of her words in the interview. Especially in the context presented.

I'd like to see a "fact check" of the (verifiable) things they both said! Some I found online with a quick google search-

"Married" with just them and the Archbishop ahead of the wedding day - not legally, according to the Church of England rules.

"Stripped Archie of his birthright" - he wasn't automatically to be a Prince, and security isn't automatic for Princes (otherwise why would they be complaining that Prince Harry's security was being taken away?)

"Lost my father" - Meh, maybe that was her choice?

She didn't know "anything" about the royal family when she met Harry - photos have circulated of her in front of Buckingham Palace as a tourist.

Turned over Passport, keys, etc... - Pretty sure I saw several trips to the US while Meghan was pregnant, so maybe she had her passport?

 

[snappy]

Not sure I believed about 75% of her words in the interview. Especially in the context presented.

I'd like to see a "fact check" of the (verifiable) things they both said! Some I found online with a quick google search-

"Married" with just them and the Archbishop ahead of the wedding day - not legally, according to the Church of England rules.

"Stripped Archie of his birthright" - he wasn't automatically to be a Prince, and security isn't automatic for Princes (otherwise why would they be complaining that Prince Harry's security was being taken away?)

"Lost my father" - Meh, maybe that was her choice?

She didn't know "anything" about the royal family when she met Harry - photos have circulated of her in front of Buckingham Palace as a tourist.

Turned over Passport, keys, etc... - Pretty sure I saw several trips to the US while Meghan was pregnant, so maybe she had her passport?

She actually said she “lost” her father? I didn’t watch the show so I didn’t realize she said this. I don’t get it. There are so many people who have lost parents, husbands and wives, children, in-laws and friends during this pandemic. I don’t think anyone is living in a rose garden right now.

 

[redrosesix]

Which to me shows how tone deaf she is. She calls up to be all nice knowing full well that she was about to blow up his world. You'll notice they didn't announce until the next day that it wasn't him or the Queen. I at least hope they kept all of this from him in the hospital. Such a shame that the Queen had to deal with all of this while dealing with her husband of 70 years in the hospital.

The show must go on. And all that.

Exactly.

They could have had the broadcast delayed easily. So what if there was a contract -- it wasn't like it was being recorded live, it could have waited. And had Oprah not complied, they could show evidence that they had at least tried.

They let that accusation simmer rather than dealing with it in the interview, or immediately following the interview. But even today American networks are blaming the Queen for the comment and painting the entire family as racist.

 

[Cheburashka]

She actually said she “lost” her father? I didn’t watch the show so I didn’t realize she said this.

Yes, she literally said that and Oprah didn't even follow up. It was a sham of an interview.

 

[snappy]

Yes, she literally said that and Oprah didn't even follow up. It was a sham of an interview.

What an incredible statement and shame on Oprah for letting her get away with it.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I’m puzzled as to why this needs to be the world’s business. I think that such things should be handled by families royal or not.

To play devil’s advocate for a second, the royal family makes their personal business the world’s business. They announce their engagements and pregnancies, broadcast their weddings and funerals, display their newborns to the press for photo ops, and have the paparazzi accompany their kids to their first days of school. They can’t then expect full privacy when other significant events happen in their family that may be less flattering, like divorce, or sex scandals, or people stepping away from their roles. The public will be curious, and the royals involved may feel compelled to tell their side of things since it’s their reputation at stake. Those born into it didn’t ask to have that fame, the royal family did that to them, and occasionally someone will understandably feel the need to “set the record straight” on the world stage because their entire lives have played out on the world stage thanks to the royal family.

 

[snappy]

Exactly.

They could have had the broadcast delayed easily. So what if there was a contract -- it wasn't like it was being recorded live, it could have waited. And had Oprah not complied, they could show evidence that they had at least tried.

They let that accusation simmer rather than dealing with it in the interview, or immediately following the interview. But even today American networks are blaming the Queen for the comment and painting the entire family as racist.

Why name names in the interview when you can be vague and have a better shot at bringing the whole institution down?Who cares if you hurt your family In the process?

 

[redrosesix]

If this is the person they are talking about, I think it could be a number of reasons.
Having to downsize and move to a less prestigious residence in Kensington Palace
Having a "lesser" Royal chip on the shoulder attitude
Having old world out dated views which is typical of people in their generation but not seen as PC in 2021.

I'm sure all of us have some extended family member who is of the older generation and has outdated views. I'm sure all of us has an extended family member who has a chip on their shoulder about something and never fails to pass sly comments at family events.

Issues with extended family are something we all have and the Royal family is no different.

Exactly what I was thinking -- every family has at least one. But we don't slam the entire family on social if crazy Uncle Don said something out of line at a family dinner. If it's a concern we take it up with another family member.

It was one person who made one comment and we still don't know the context of the comment. I'm sure more were speculating on whether the baby would have red hair.