Meghan and Harry. Has anyone changed their opinion post Oprah?

It’s more annoying to me that during the world wide Covid pandemic, with people needing to use food banks at home and in America too, with thousands of people losing their jobs, and one of the biggest financial crises in our time, that Harry and Meghan have deliberately sought the limelight with, amongst other things, complaining that Prince Charles cut them off financially. Prince Harry has inherited millions from his mother and great grandmother, and Meghan has a very much smaller few millions, that would nonetheless seem like a huge amount of money to any one of us. To be so entitled and greedy, not to mention lazy (the rest of the population go to work, they don’t sit in a multi million pound house without a job) having given up the well paid job they did have, well it beggars belief.
During the broadcast it appears Harry petulantly said ‘I’m a royal prince.’ What an outsize and inflated ego he has.

Well,.....I am just slightly amused as to how many people seem to think they are involved in the lives of one of the richest and most privileged families in the world.

My feeling about anything to do with the royal family has always been that I think about them as often as they think about me and mine!!!

At a time when tens of thousands of people in UK are out of work - and more will be joining that group in the very near future, when the NHS is being privatised under out noses, when tens of thousands of children across the world are seeing their parents and siblings die in horrific war zones, and are caught up in trying live in dreadful camps,, people seem to be more worried about this particular soap opera.

I’m appalled by how many people seem to “know” someone and what their experiences are, how they feel or see the world, when they actually don’t.

I didn’t really mind her until I watched and her circumnavigation of the truth.I now think she as an appalling person and she should remain in the US for ever.

What I cannot understand, if life was so bad for them, why they wanted to stay in the Royal Family, but pick and choose the duties that they wanted to undertake. They wanted the more prestigious roles such as foreign tours. I think neither consider that the money they were living on was our taxes. I am glad as a taxpayer that I am no longer supporting them, but I do feel aggrieved that they have wasted so much of my tax money. It is their sense of entitlement I find so maddening

I don't often comment on these things but am interested in history and the Royal Family as part of that. They don't live in the real world. However I watched the interview so that I could form an opinion without just listening to 'snippets' and others' opinions. What shocked me most were the similarities between this woman and how she interacted with her husband and a personal family situation we are experiencing. I could see all the elements of narcissism in Meghan and the subjugation and control over Harry which we are also struggling to deal with. He looked uncomfortable and confused to me. Apparently a narcissistic character hones in on the empathetic and maybe vulnerable and then manipulates and controls them. They lie and blame everyone else for their own problems and cut them off if they do not agree with them. By the way the woman in our case is also an actress!! I am not a psychologist by the way but.....

Yes I believe you're right.

Now she has driven a wedge between H and his family she says she has "everything shes ever wanted!" Its concerning for H that hes been isolated from his family and as shes not close to hers, its a shame for their kids.

in my opinion.... Meghan was always jealous of Kate. Meghan wanted the star role, and could not bear to be second to Kate. I really do believe that she was jealous of Harrys closeness to Kate, and set about driving a wedge between them. She probably had to curtsy to Kate on formal occasions.

Some of it may have been true, but there were definitely times where Harry contradicted Meghan, suggesting discrepancies. The mystery post that shall not be named was very ambiguous, as no doubt it was meant to be (hurled like a hand grenade)

We all wonder about things, all families do those things! But because of M's Heritage, it seems we arent allowed to (Im basing this on people being banned from MN for discussing/questioning what happened)

I think the interview was a tissue of lies from start to finish.
Meghan's body language did not match her speech and she used all sorts of tactics like lowering her eyes and touching beneath her eyes as if wiping away a tear. Rapid eye movement and double blinking is an indication of lying.
Harry sounded vindictive and petulant.
I wondered about my children before they were born, my DH had right red hair and my paternal grandmother only had one eye, all of my family wondered whether the eye defect would be inherited. We all discussed these worries at length, it was families do.

When I was pregnant we often discussed who the baby might look like- hair , eyes, skin tone etc as many times a baby can take after their GP or even further back.

On the one hand musing about who a baby might take after seems reasonable, but in this case I think youd have to have been there to really know for sure how "the comment" was intended. It seems in bad taste to air it on tv and if there is actual fact and substance to this, surely they would have taken it further legally rather than jeopardise a legal case with rumours.

No I havent changed my mind. But a few things stand out as strange.

Sorry but what? Harry didnt get his wife MH help when she was suicidal because "it wasn't the done thing!?"

Meghan did not know anything about the RF??? Really?

Harry referred to "home" as Britain, while Meghan says she has "everything shes always wanted"

Poor Queen!

And as for the comment that was thrown "out there" that had no facts, detail or explanation- I think if it actually happened then it needs to have been kept quiet and dealt with legally, not advertised in a half assed way that contributes to mystery and drama that benefits noone.

I will not say everything I think seeing as there is no such thing as free speech.

Harry is like the Spencers, it’s wrong to keep bringing Hewitt up, he was hired to teach the small boys pony riding.

because of an earlier post I've just seen;

“Harry was born on September 15, 1984, which means he was conceived around Christmas 1983 ... “Diana did not meet James Hewitt until the summer of 1986.

It was ‘their truth’ not ‘the truth’

I tried really hard to find some sympathy for them.......but couldn't.
I confess I did not like the comment regarding Archies skin colour though. I found them both- but especially H a little whiney. They did not do themselves any favours at all.

Harry couldn't stop meghan........he knows his place.

I have not changed my opinion of her,I disliked her from the engagement interview.

But I have changed from thinking she was clever and dangerous to realising she is neither.

Also not all Americans are supporting her,a lot of them think she is cunning,manipulative and a liar.

How Harry did this to his family is beyond my comprehension.

So many Americans on tv today condemning the UK, they need to look closer to home

With regard to a title for Archie - I seem to recall they were both adamant that they didn't want that, wanted him to be a "normal" child. I also recall Harry saying that his dream was to take his family and settle in his beloved Africa; now that would have been a wonderful thing and they could have done so much good. But no, now they are being poor little Megs and Haz lost in La La Land, living their own soap opera.

I thought it was H & M who declined a title for their son, not that he was not given one.

One thing that sticks out to me is that there seems to be an assumption that everything that was said by H & M is true and correct. Is it? I wonder it sounds more like a form of bullying to me.

Sharp tools Gagajo? - far more to it than just not revealing who may or may not have said it.

GagaJo

Yes, Boogaloo, it's called colourism. It's the name for same colour racism.

Mulatto
Quadroon
VERY offensive terms. I probably shouldn't have used them.

GNHQ, if they are inappropriate, can you delete my post please?

Colorism is not really about a persons parentage, as in mulatto etc. My former husband was informing me about actual skin color/shade amongst 'black' people. This was many years ago and people were self-segregated and interracial unions were very rare and only just become legal in all 50 states.

People with light skin were not called mulatto nor mixed race because they were just light-skinned blacks. 'Black' people came in all shades which made for interesting conversation when discussing the skin tone of future babies.

I don't consider this racist at all btw.

Yes, Boogaloo, it's called colourism. It's the name for same colour racism.

Mulatto
Quadroon
VERY offensive terms. I probably shouldn't have used them.

GNHQ, if they are inappropriate, can you delete my post please?

Well obviously he meant the specifics.

What was that about sharp tools?