Camilla-Queen Consort?

Ogres? From what her staff said, Meghan was one of those.

maddyone

^…the ogres who run the royal household…..^
Hmmmmm evidence? How does anyone know what the people are like who work in the royal household?

Petera, you may choose to believe or choose to disbelieve the facts which have been put before you. You apparently don’t want to watch the interview which a previous poster has put up for you, nor apparently did your Google search throw up anything about the Queen having Letters of Patent altered, or the fact that great grandchildren of the monarch are not automatically styled prince or princess. In fact ( another fact for you) Prince Edward’s children, who are very much entitled to be styled prince and princess, and who are grandchildren (not great grandchildren) of the monarch do not use the titles prince or princess. Nor do any of the monarch’s great grandchildren, apart from Williams’s children. The reason for their being different should be self evident. It’s absolutely clear that you have no desire to face the facts. That’s your choice. Asking posters to provide evidence and then declining to look at the evidence or disbelieve it is also entirely your choice.

I think the post above comes across as being pretty judgmental, as another poster wrote. No wait, it was you who wrote it.

…the ogres who run the royal household…..
Hmmmmm evidence? How does anyone know what the people are like who work in the royal household?

Petera, you may choose to believe or choose to disbelieve the facts which have been put before you. You apparently don’t want to watch the interview which a previous poster has put up for you, nor apparently did your Google search throw up anything about the Queen having Letters of Patent altered, or the fact that great grandchildren of the monarch are not automatically styled prince or princess. In fact ( another fact for you) Prince Edward’s children, who are very much entitled to be styled prince and princess, and who are grandchildren (not great grandchildren) of the monarch do not use the titles prince or princess. Nor do any of the monarch’s great grandchildren, apart from Williams’s children. The reason for their being different should be self evident. It’s absolutely clear that you have no desire to face the facts. That’s your choice. Asking posters to provide evidence and then declining to look at the evidence or disbelieve it is also entirely your choice.

Of course Diana and Meghan are nothing alike!
Diana was shy and forced into the limelight.
She was so quiet that her sisters’ nickname was Dutch, after a doll (ie it doesn’t speak).
Meghan is a not great actor who wants to be as famous as possible.
You’ve got to hand it to her for how well she has done.

Meghan was nothing like Diana. She wanted to change the way things were done in the RF. Didn’t succeed but managed to change Harry.

JillyJosie2

Judging someone from watching them on tv, even in an interview as opposed to a documentary, isn't some kind of neutral exercise. It's a judgmental forming of opinion from your own cultural, educational, generational and possibly professional background. How often have High Court judges got it wrong, how have judgments changed over the last 100 years often against the wishes of senior judges who were people from a particular background, education, class and time.

I don't really care and I can't be bothered to watch an hour and a half YouTube video but Meghan looks pretty young to me. A young American will have a totally different attitude to life and emotional depths which your average English person, especially one over 50 will find hard to grasp. Of course she would have wanted to fit in, I suppose the ogres who run the royal household would have tried to get their mitts on her but I think she looks the image of a young Diana who also got it in the neck for not meekly bowing to her husband's mistress or the revolting racism and privilege of the Royals.

As used to be said, thank goodness the great British public doesn't have access to the death penalty. We'd have gallows in the streets in no time. Honestly, just look at yourselves.

Meghan will be 41 this year. She is not a young naive girl, she's a smart well-educated woman who had her own career and a previous marriage before she met Harry.
She is nothing like Diana was.

Did someone say german?
Blödsinn!

maddyone

The evidence is there Petera but if you choose to disbelieve it, that of course is your right. I have given perfectly acceptable and rigorous evidence, as have others.
I do wonder why you choose to disbelieve it though.

choose to disbelieve or disbelieve. There - fixed that for you.

The rigorous evidence presented so far includes several "Oh come on" arguments and amateur body language expertise.

Maybe you could wonder a bit more out loud about your final sentence, I have no idea what you're thinking, why you are thinking it and why you believe that it's germane.

But please try not to be judgmental. It's not a good look.

but Meghan looks pretty young to me

I think she looks the image of a young Diana

Really?

Meghan must have been pushing 40 on the Oprah interview, nothing like the naive 19/20 year old Diana when she embarked on royal life.

As for being a ‘young?’ American, she was also an actress, very street smart and no innocent teenager. If she wasn’t made fully aware of what a future royal role would entail, from her besotted fiancé, they have only themselves to blame. Harry should have outlined just what the job involved, he had been part of it all his life. But I suspect he was worried it would scare her off, and so she was only told the best bits, not the mundane, boring, tedious parts of being a working Royal.

Thanks Molly.

Maddyone it’s certainly a weird post and definitely judgemental.

I don’t agree with the death sentence, ever.
Just saying.
I think the post above comes across as being pretty judgmental itself.

Judging someone from watching them on tv, even in an interview as opposed to a documentary, isn't some kind of neutral exercise. It's a judgmental forming of opinion from your own cultural, educational, generational and possibly professional background. How often have High Court judges got it wrong, how have judgments changed over the last 100 years often against the wishes of senior judges who were people from a particular background, education, class and time.

I don't really care and I can't be bothered to watch an hour and a half YouTube video but Meghan looks pretty young to me. A young American will have a totally different attitude to life and emotional depths which your average English person, especially one over 50 will find hard to grasp. Of course she would have wanted to fit in, I suppose the ogres who run the royal household would have tried to get their mitts on her but I think she looks the image of a young Diana who also got it in the neck for not meekly bowing to her husband's mistress or the revolting racism and privilege of the Royals.

As used to be said, thank goodness the great British public doesn't have access to the death penalty. We'd have gallows in the streets in no time. Honestly, just look at yourselves.

The evidence is there Petera but if you choose to disbelieve it, that of course is your right. I have given perfectly acceptable and rigorous evidence, as have others.
I do wonder why you choose to disbelieve it though.

Peters the Queen did not make the offspring of her other grandchildren - Peter and Zara Phillips or Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie - princes and princesses either. Therefore Archie was being treated exactly the same as her other great grandchildren whose father was not a direct heir to the throne.

Even before the wedding Meghan was telling the world how she wanted "to hit the ground running" and learn everything about the institution, the Commonwealth, the charities etc. She sounded very intelligent and committed, wishing to soak up all the information about the Royal Family and the British people. I am sure the marriage service in St. George's Chapel would have been minutely explained to her as the real deal, not the few prayers, promises or whatever in the garden. So she wasn't telling the truth, however you look at it.

maddyone I'm very happy to accept that she lied, I'd just like stronger evidence. All I have to go on is what you (and others) have posted.

Watch the interview!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2lFvFhWE2Y

Come on Petera, She lied about many things. As for as the wedding or that thing as she so rudely put it, that was done for the world apparently.

30 million pounds thrown down the drain as of course the Archbishop had married them in their garden in USA. Which of course is untrue.

She merrily trilled that her real wedding was in the back garden. Poor Archbishop could have got into trouble for that lie.

I found it interesting when she was discussing how it had just been the 3 of them at the event. Oprah was looking thrilled but Harry was the one to watch. Eyes down, kicking at dust. Knowing full well his wife wasn't being honest.

maddyone I'm very happy to accept that she lied, I'd just like stronger evidence. All I have to go on is what you (and others) have posted.

From my own - happily admitedly uninformed - viewpoint there seems to have been three phases to the whole saga

1. She is a breath of fresh air to the monarchy, but
2. She is uppity wanting to be part of the monarchy, but
3. She is now even more uppity for not wanting to be part of the monarchy.

Sorry Petera you’re simply refusing to accept that Meghan lied, and so I’m afraid I do regard you as ‘taking sides,’ Meghan lied about when they got married. It doesn’t matter what happens in France, that’s got nothing to do with it. It doesn’t really matter what happens in America either because Meghan was getting married in England and she would have had everything explained to her. I’m sure if you were getting married in a different country you would take the trouble to find out whether the marriage would be legal or not. As my son and daughter in law did when they got married in Mauritius.

As for the entitlement to be styled with a certain title, your Google search will have thrown up the information regarding the Queen altering the Letters of Patent with regard to Charlotte and Louis. I can see no reason for her to change the situation for Archie as he will become entitled to be called a prince when his grandfather becomes king. Anyway, no titles are recognised in America and so it is a moot point. In any case Charles quite rightly wants to slim down the monarchy when he becomes king. As Williams’s children grow up and have children of their own, the Sussex children will move further and further down the line of accession and since they will be living elsewhere will become increasingly irrelevant in this country.

Oh come on, over the wedding, apparently according to Meghan they called up the Archbishop on a whim and he came straight over and married them there and then. I don't think so, I expect it was a rehearsal, though why in the garden? Harry would have known perfectly well that it was not their legal wedding, so why didn't he correct her instead of going along with it? As for Archie not being a Prince,Harry and Meghan in an interview which I heard, soon after the birth said that they didn't want him to have a title as they both wanted him to grow up as normally as possible. Poor Prince Harry apparently never ever went on a bike ride with his parents? Yes he did, there are photos to prove it. I'm sure that Harry has been persuaded that he had an awful upbringing with cold uncaring parents as he does seem to be easily influenced

maddyone

Petera Meghan lied about her wedding. She said the Archbishop of Canterbury married them in the garden three days before the wedding in Windsor. She said ‘that spectacle’ was just for the public, but they actually got married ‘just the three of us’ in the garden three days before. This caused the Archbishop of Canterbury immense embarrassment as it’s illegal in Britain to get married anywhere unless the place is registered to do marriages and additionally by law there must two witnesses to any marriage.
Additionally she lied about Archie’s title. She said that the royal family refused him the title of Prince because of his skin colour. In actual fact Archie is not eligible for the title of prince because his grandparent is not the monarch. When Charles becomes king Archie will automatically become a prince and be able to use that title if he so wishes. Williams’s first child, George was entitled to be titled prince upon his birth because he is in the direct line to the throne. However his sister Charlotte and brother Louis were not entitled to be titled princess/prince until the Queen changed the Letters of Patent which then entitled to use those titles.
Meghan may well have lied about other things, but these two lies in particular, are the most glaring.

You've lead me to google about (and of course if I see it on the internet it must be true), but let me play devil's advocate.

And I really don't have any side here, I'm equally inclined to believe they all lied, or one lied but not deliberately.

On the question of the ‘wedding’ (I assume something took place?) there is even support from Anglican clergy which essentially says: it’s a cultural thing – most things that Americans call marriages are not in fact legal marriages but these are the important parts to them. If we look at, for example, France the legal side at the town hall and the social side in the church are very well separated but I’ve never heard anyone fail to describe what happened in church as their marriage. So while it’s clear that they weren’t legally married in a garden I think there is room for it to be described as a marriage, particularly from someone outside of English culture, without any intention to mislead, let alone lie.

On the question of the title, and leaving aside that I don’t really understand what is meant by ‘direct line to the throne’, you seem to be saying that Charlotte and Louis were not entitled but the Queen in some way granted it to them. But then she could have done the same for Archie and she didn’t. So that doesn’t then prove one way or the other that Meghan lied.

welbeck

i think he probably believes it's true when he says it.
he is not very intellectual.
he is probably not used to critically examining the status of ideas, memories, let alone being self critical in a logical way.
i think he could be easily persuaded that his parents neglected him.

I agree welbeck you have said very concisely what I think too.

Thanks J52. I was wrong, I should have said England. It was a mistake and I apologise. It doesn’t change the fact that Meghan lied though.

Not wishing to be picky, just putting the record straight. You can get married anywhere in Scotland, indoors or out.
Just saying ?