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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

No, definitely not! M is manipulating the situation just like she has from the start!
I've seen snippets in the news, allegedly she didn't realise that she would have to curtesy to the Queen!

The more I hear, the more I think this whole story owes more to imagination than fact.

I think before long Justin Welby will have to be brought into the debate to ascertain the facts about the ‘double’ wedding.

Yes, I’m sure it was a rehearsal, but a bit worrying if H&M didn’t realise that.

tickingbird

I don’t think there was a wedding 3 days earlier. Must have been a rehearsal. If that is the case, how much more embroidering of the truth did they do in their hatchet job interview?

There wasn't a wedding 3 days earlier. She may well have had a rehearsal of sorts in the garden with the Archbishop but she wasn't married.

Why she said that with such glee, I'll never know. Maybe she thinks we are unaware of how our life events are registered. Needed a spot of research doing.

I think it's very sad. I feel sorry for the Queen.

"how much more embroidering of the truth did they do" indeed tickingbird

Re the matter of Archie’s skin. When questioned about it by Oprah, Harry said he was uncomfortable with the conversation. He did not say he was shocked or horrified, which makes me think it was not a racist conversation until it was relayed to Meghan who perhaps took it to be so.

I don’t think there was a wedding 3 days earlier. Must have been a rehearsal. If that is the case, how much more embroidering of the truth did they do in their hatchet job interview?

Nezumi65, I agree that ‘plenty of us did not feel the need to speculate on the colour of Archies skin’. However the family may have felt the need to warn H & M of possible gutter press and social media trolling should their child have a dark skin.
She was probably warned that she’d be picked on for what she wore, whether she wore tights and whether her bun was tidy.
The whole thing could have been a warning of what they may expect in order to prepare them and therefore protect them.
I hope that is the case. I sincerely hope that no member of our royal family is racist.
The context is important.

The Arch Bishop needs to make a statement to either verify this claim or refute it.

Bridgeit

News Flash, just announced that Prince Harry has clarified that neither the Queen or Prince Philip were the ones who made the/a comment about what colour his & Meghans’s baby might be.

I wonder just how much more damage limitation Harry will be forced to do over the next few weeks?

He has really cut himself off from his family by this airing of dirty linen worldwide.
And, if he finds he was just a 'useful idiot' in years to come, he may find himself very lonely indeed.

She’s

a) he’s 3 years old than him - hardly an older woman
b) plenty of us did not feel the need to speculate on the colour of Archie’s skin