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

Luckygirl
I'm with you too. Some of the comments on here today are just cruel. And I would want to be no part of that.

No mud slinging from me.

a couple who said they experienced racism, one said they felt suicidal. It’s not for me, or anyone else for that matter to tell them that what they felt / experienced was imagined.

Luckygirl

I am both intrigued and saddened by the level of venom that is demonstrated when Harry and Meghan are under discussion.

Why would people, who I assume are normal kind citizens, suddenly think it is OK to denigrate someone to this degree? Someone they do not know; someone whose statements they can neither verify nor refute; someone who is indeed simply a fellow human being. What is this all about?

Being lead by the nose by the likes of Murdoch. No one knows the truth, but will happily spout bile and hatred to their hearts content.

Phew! - I am glad that there is another Gransnetter who is not prepared to join in the mud-slinging.

Luckygirl I'm with you.

Somebody on Jeremy Vine just now asked a similar question. When someone is talking about feeling suicidal, in what world is the right response "Oh, she's making it all up" ?

I am both intrigued and saddened by the level of venom that is demonstrated when Harry and Meghan are under discussion.

Why would people, who I assume are normal kind citizens, suddenly think it is OK to denigrate someone to this degree? Someone they do not know; someone whose statements they can neither verify nor refute; someone who is indeed simply a fellow human being. What is this all about?

A US Facebook group has already started using the term ‘Meghan’s truth’ to explain some of the variations in what they have said over time. Why not use ‘Harry’s truth’?

Cack, not crack. What a phrase...

Smileless2012

are you saying that the term coercive control is only used against women Fanny? If so you're incorrect. There have just here on GN been examples of son's in law exercising coercive control.

No, quite the opposite.
It's used against men in the manor of cases.
I was attempting, evidently in a crack handed way, to make the point that if Meghan was a man she would definitely be accused of coercive control.

Anniebach

Doubt any mocking if his family will trouble Harry, he will see
it support for him and his wife. No one can now put the boot in more than Harry did in the interview.

Meg and Diana came from dysfunctional families yet the family they married into gets all the blame.

I think that the Royal Family can be blamed for what happened to Diana. She was 20 when she married Charles whereas MM was 37 when she married Harry. She was an experienced woman when she met Harry whereas Diana was a naive young woman, almost a girl. I do think that the couple have brought a lot of the aggro upon themselves.

She also lied about getting married three days earlier. If it was a rehearsal where they read their own vows and possibly had a blessing, as has been suggested/reported by the Times and the Church, nonetheless it was not truth.

Meghan must have lied about having her password removed because she regularly flew out of the country, on holiday, to a baby shower, to watch her friend play tennis, to escape to Canada twice, to fly from Canada to LA, and of course, on royal tours. She needed her passport for all these trips. Only the Queen is allowed to travel without a passport. All members of the RF need their passport to travel out of the country.

are you saying that the term coercive control is only used against women Fanny? If so you're incorrect. There have just here on GN been examples of son's in law exercising coercive control.

Doubt any mocking if his family will trouble Harry, he will see
it support for him and his wife. No one can now put the boot in more than Harry did in the interview.

Meg and Diana came from dysfunctional families yet the family they married into gets all the blame.

Re coercive control
Imagine if the sexes of the protagonists were reversed.

What if it were former golden girl, daughter of Diana, Princess Harriet,
and US actor Mike Markle?

Just a thought, as they say.

I wonder how H feels about the family he loves being trashed by chat show hosts in the country he's decided to make his home.

Jimmy Kimmel has called them "inbreeding royals" and joked that "Charles has the ears of a basset hound.

Stephen Colbert asked if their "medieval selective breeding program might be racist".

JK looks from his photo to be mixed race; is he being racist?

She says she had her driving licence and passport removed (cue shocked expression from Oprah )

Could that possibly have been because a member of staff was dealing with her change of name, address etc hence new passport and driving licence?

Most of us have to deal with this ourselves as we don't have minions to sort it all out for us.

Pantglas2

“Meghan married into a dysfunctional family.”

If that’s the case, luckygirl, she should’ve felt right at home having come from one.....

You said it so much more succinctly than me, Pantglas!

The more I see or read of this, the small inaccuracies occur to me, which leads me to wonder about the larger claims.

1. Meghan knew nothing of the royal family. When she
got engaged a school friend (who appeared on a photo
with Meghan taken outside Buckingham Palace when
They were 15) spoke of her interest in the Royal Family
and said that oddly enough Meghan had Andrew
Morton’s book on Diana on her bookshelves.

2. Meghan knew nothing of the ‘ways’ of the Royal family
Even though they both spoke of the way it had been
Explained to her during their engagement interview.

3. The ‘backyard’ wedding, ok it could have been a slip
Of the tongue, and she meant a blessing, but if they
Wanted a small wedding, why go ahead with the big one.

4. She only left the house twice in 4 months - really?

5. Why would anyone approach HR to arrange a
medical appointment relating to mental health issues
when they had so many connections themselves.

6. Why did Meghan say tell Oprah (not screened in
Main interview)that she hadn’t seen Samantha for
20 years when she was photographed with her at
Samantha’s graduation 13 years ago)

7. Why didn’t Harry explain the rules regarding titles
To her, I can’t believe he didn’t know.

8. The York sisters have had their security paid for
By Prince Andrew for some time. Why would
Harry assume that Metropolitan police would
Uproot themselves to Canada and that the tax
Payers would continue to pay.

These are small points, but if you are giving such a devastating interview, which took such a long time to record, wouldn’t you have the sense to ensure that every little thing you said was totally accurate, so that the entirety would be believed. I think Harry has finally showed a backbone by removing his family from what they regarded as a toxic atmosphere, had he acted earlier and manned up, they might not have been in this position.

Meghan married into a dysfunctional family. When Harry saw that it was making her ill (as it did his mother) he got her out of it. Good for him.

What would be the definition of a dysfunctional family? Most families have their skeletons, their stories, their dodgy uncle. I doubt there are many without.
Before the arrival of Meghan, with her well-documented dysfunctional family trailing in her wake, their stories in the media, Harry's relationship with his family seemed fine although he was obviously not happy at not finding a girlfriend who didn't shy away from the Royal Family and the resulting press media. I'm sure he longed to be married and have a family like his brother. But Chelsy and Cressida knew the score and escaped.

Harry knew the protocols but obviously failed to help Meghan adjust to all this according to her. Perhaps she told him she'd be fine - she was going to "hit the ground running" after all.
What started as a dream with the public, if not the media, on her side, has ended in isolation from his friends and family too, just as his wife is from hers.
Is that control?

She read the media reports - big mistake and now seeks to manipulate the media for her own ends.

Apparently Harry is annoyed now with his father as he has refused to pay for their security. And he has to pay for his own security, if he wants it, with the millions his mother left to him
maddyone it would have been a round the clock royal protection squad from Scotland Yard at great expense to the taxpayer. Remember the hoo ha over protection for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie?

People want a slimmed down monarchy - we're well on the way as has been made clear.

Interestingly, Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex and their children, only get security provided when they are engaged in official duties. Edward is the son of a monarch and doesn’t get security routinely, so why would the great grandson of a monarch be deemed to need security more than the son of a monarch?

trisher
It was also said by Harry that his father stopped paying, and from the clips I’ve seen, he was quite put out about it. He seemed to be annoyed that he has to use the millions left to to him by his mother.
Archie isn’t entitled to be styled Prince at the moment. Although he would be entitled to styled Prince when Charles becomes king, since they have retired from public duties, and are living as private individuals, why would they expect either the title of Prince, which incidentally is not recognised in the USA, or for his father to continue to pay? The level of entitlement is simply staggering!

maddyone they said quite clearly that because Archie wouldn't be given a title he would not be entitled to any security. That was H's main concern. The security went with the rank and without it he couldn't have any.

maddyone, that's what I understood as well. I think, once they left, the government didn't want to annoy the taxpayer by making us foot the bill. Canada refused to pay, as you say, and now they are in America who presumably also don't see why they should pay as they are not in any kind of official capacity.

We paid for their security whilst they were in Canada, but they were informed that it was going to come to an end because they weren’t engaged in royal duties, I think that was the reason. I think they had about six months of security provided by us. They then wanted Canada, as a Commonwealth country to pick up the tab, but unsurprisingly Canada said no. So they fled to that bastion of safety, LA, and took refuge in a famous friend of Oprah’s villa, and he provided free security whilst they were there. Apparently Harry is annoyed now with his father as he has refused to pay for their security. And he has to pay for his own security, if he wants it, with the millions his mother left to him. Poor Harry, and people going to food banks in his home country because they can’t afford food!