Camilla-Queen Consort?

I agree with that Dickens. We judge ‘celebrities’ by their documented actions or words. But I’ve often seen on royal threads posters saying to another poster that they shouldn’t say this or that because we don’t know them. This has been particularly evident on threads about Meghan and Harry, so I’m saying no, we don’t know them but we can form a valid opinion based on their words/actions. Indeed I never knew the Queen Mother, but I’ve read enough about her to believe that she was a snob and not particularly likeable. That’s my impression based on things I’ve read, but I didn’t ever know her personally.

I agree with maddyone.
There were quite a few attacks here on GN about opinions formed of Meghan after the Oprah interview. The accusations were that posters couldn't possibly comment about someone they had never met, despite us clearly witnessing Meghan's every facial expression and listening to her every spoken word. No one needed to know her to form an opinion, it was all there loud and clear, and in glorious technicolour. Infact Meghan was doing pretty much the same as Boris spouting in the House, which quite rightly draws posters to judge and to form opinions. The same rules should be applied in a smaller or wider sense.
You can learn a lot from observation of people.

Josieann

I agree with maddyone.
There were quite a few attacks here on GN about opinions formed of Meghan after the Oprah interview. The accusations were that posters couldn't possibly comment about someone they had never met, despite us clearly witnessing Meghan's every facial expression and listening to her every spoken word. No one needed to know her to form an opinion, it was all there loud and clear, and in glorious technicolour. Infact Meghan was doing pretty much the same as Boris spouting in the House, which quite rightly draws posters to judge and to form opinions. The same rules should be applied in a smaller or wider sense.
You can learn a lot from observation of people.

Except it's a lot more nuanced than that. And I'm saying this as someone who has no opinion about which side is 'right', if either.

We don't only judge Johnson on his behaviour in the House; we judge him in his policies and his lying.

And any appearance of a member of the RF on the media, with the possible exception of PA in his 'I think that went quite well' interview, is so carefully stage managed that we can draw no reliable opinion from it.

It's also true that Meghan may be a deplorable person, I have no idea, but that doesn't make her wrong.

But we do know that Meghan lies. She lied in her Oprah interview. If that’s what we’re judging people on.

Actually Harry lies too. He said his parents never took him out on a bicycle ride, but then lots of pictures emerged of Harry out cycling with his parents.

maddyone

But we do know that Meghan lies. She lied in her Oprah interview. If that’s what we’re judging people on.

I haven't seen it. What did she lie about?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Watch the interview!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2lFvFhWE2Y

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Thanks Molly.

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.