Monday - will you watch....and why?

I’ve seen the entire interview. If you plan on watching, I would keep an open mind until you’ve seen it as well.

I will say that the private wedding was simply a ceremony with the archbishop where they shared their own vows (rather than the traditional vows from the televised wedding). I’m sure the televised wedding was the legal ceremony but the private one was something intimate they did beforehand. I think they mentioned it just to illustrate how they do prefer things to be more simple but also wanted to meet expectations. Anyways, I
I’d cut them a bit of slack. Seems like they are still on good terms with the queen as Meghan said they now can call and speak to her directly again and do some video chats. Hopefully, they can move on now that they’ve expressed themselves in their own words. I think this departure was for the best.

So far Callistemon, I agree.
I feel inclined to sit watching with my notebook this evening. Trying to sort the truth and their truth.
Hope I can balance my glass, notepad and pen and still eat my truffles and mints.

Meghan is playing the racist card as another whip to beat the Royal family with. She only heard the comment second hand and has immediately decided it was racist.
None of us know what was said and who by or how it was said.

I am not a fan of the Royal family but I do respect the Queen and I would hate to think that any of my grandchildren would turn against me and my family so viciously.

H1954 - she didn’t realize she had to curtsy to the Queen because they were all meeting for a lunch in private at Prince Andrews home. She (mistakenly) thought it was something only done in public and not privately amongst family members. It was her first visit to UK with Harry and she wasn’t expecting to even meet the Queen at that time. Again, best to watch the whole thing for context and not get caught up in salacious “snippets”.

Amelia247, didn’t Meghan say that they hadn’t told anyone previously but they actually got married three days before? I’ll apologise if I misheard and will check my facts this evening.

She did say that, but later it was said, it was just they made vows to each other in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

She is proving to be very economical with the truth, but I forget this interview is all about her truths, not the truth.

Yes, she did. But to my recollection she never said which one was the legal ceremony just that the Archbishop married them in private, just the three of them, three days before the wedding. Logically, if only three people were in attendance at the private ceremony they didn’t have the necessary two witnesses for it to be the legal marriage although it obviously meant something to them to have it. For those feeling like the big televised wedding was just a facade, I wanted to clarify.

So we saw a renewal of wedding vows not an exchange of marriage vows.

I can't remember who it was but somebody said this morning Diana managed 16 years but Meghan only 20 months. She needed a lot more preparation for entering the royal family and help along the way. Diana really struggled and Charles wasn't much help. It must be like living in a goldfish bowl.

LauraNorder

*Amelia247*, didn’t Meghan say that they hadn’t told anyone previously but they actually got married three days before? I’ll apologise if I misheard and will check my facts this evening.

LauraNorder I may record it to skip the adverts. Normally I'd never have a on a Monday so if I do watch it this evening after all I'll just have to keep the brandy decanter close by.

IF they married three days before, as Meghan said, then what we watched was an illegal wedding not a renewal of vows, which does not have the legal phrases and format.

If they didn’t marry three days before, then what she said was untrue.

I think there’s a lot being caught up in semantics here re “wedding”, “marriage”, and “made vows”. It was just an off-handed mention she made while showing Oprah around their home (filmed on a separate day than the sit-down interview).

There were no follow-up questions or post-interview clarifications. She simply made the comment and then they started talking about other subjects. Some are treating this interview like a court deposition. I’m sure you’ll find many things to scrutinize, pick at and assess from the couch but it certainly isn’t worth the anger and vitriol. Particularly from those who continuously claim they don’t care at all.

No Peasblossom you have got it all wrong, we are getting her truth, which is clearly not at all the same as the truth.

Thank you M0nica. I didn’t hear the second part. I’ll refrain from further comment until I’ve heard it all for myself.
I think I’ve finally got your moniker right. 0 not O.

I heard the words "marriage" "vows" and "union" when she spoke about the Archbishop ceremony.
And something about a framed certificate on the wall.
So the wedding 3 days later was what?

“Illegal wedding”???

Perhaps you can sue them for your two hours of time back from watching that travesty. The horror!!!

Ellianne - she said she framed their vows they’d written for the private ceremony NOT a certificate.

I can't bring myself to watch it and I can't see Mr. S. staying awake TBH so I'm relying on your feed back if you do watch it Callistemon.

You watch and I'll drink the.

Amelia247, in my opinion you are wrong to trivialise the importance of this interview with comments such as we are ‘getting caught up in semantics’, treating it like a court deposition’ ‘it is not worth the anger and vitriol’.
It is important to us, our heritage, our institutions, our monarchy, our beliefs are being called in to question around the world by a young woman who seems to have many issues of her own.
We don’t need to know ‘her truths’ we want to know the truth.

And there may well be a gap of credibility between what could be perceived as created truth and what is actual truth

It was just an off-handed mention she made
So what else was just an off-hand mention then Amelia?

Yes Laura it is important, and I might be just as fanatical about my religion as others are about their race.

LauraNorder - you know nothing about me. What makes you think your heritage is any different than mine? You’re very much entitled to your opinion as am I but heritage has not one thing to do with it.

I simply think it’s unwise to interview someone and expect anything other than their perspective. There are always multiple sides to a story, I’d love to know how anyone plans on settling on what THE truth is? Perhaps a group interview with all the players hashing it out in front of a carefully selected panel of “experts”. I’m truly curious.

Within families, especially large ones there will always be misunderstandings, hurt feelings and tough decisions. Best we all learn from this spectacle and treat our loved ones with care. Bashing a formerly suicidal pregnant woman for things said and unsaid will never be the answer.

Ellianne - well they also mentioned in the same breath that they’d rescued some chickens.

Will we ever know the truth. There may be a statement eventually from the Palace but they may just decide on a dignified silence.
It will be up to those who watch to decide what is true or not. I don't think too many of the British public will be swayed by what Meghan says. Many don't even care what she has to say.