Forum Topic

Meghan

I really do not know who she thinks she is. I think it's a shame at a good old age Prince Phillip and the Queen have to be bothered with a young lady that want's so much attention. Meghan isn't that young she should have more respect and stop causing trouble.

Barbara Stevens ● 2076d74 Comments

The Times yesterday:-"Royal aides have hit back at the Duchess of Sussex before her television interview with Oprah Winfrey by revealing that she faced a bullying complaint made by one of her closest advisers during her time at Kensington Palace.The sources approached The Times because they felt that only a partial version had emerged of Meghan’s two years as a working member of the royal family and they wished to tell their side, concerned about how such matters are handled by the palace. The complaint claimed that she drove two personal assistants out of the household and was undermining the confidence of a third staff member."I really do not know who these Royal aides think they are. I think it's a shame at a good old age Prince Phillip and the Queen have to be bothered with Royal aides that want so much attention. Doubtless these Royal aides aren't that young so they should have more respect and stop causing trouble.

David Ainsworth ● 2076d

We're in the middle of a pandemic that's caused economic chaos and killed many, because of the chaos caused by an ill considered and bad deal the government has just unilaterally breached the Northern Ireland protocol of that deal which it freely signed in haste three months ago - does anyone really care about the squabbles of a rich, privileged family? 

Michael Ixer ● 2076d

Yes, and when Philip is in hospital too !

Richard Carter ● 2076d

"does anyone really care about the squabbles of a rich, privileged family?""Meghan Slams The Firm"14k comments show a lot of caring, Mr Ixer!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/index.htmlShould anyone really care about the squabbles of a rich, privileged family? Discuss, I guess.

David Ainsworth ● 2076d

It's a he said/she said answer. We're never going to get the truth. I do think the palace aids are loyalists and would probably bring out stuff to damage Harry/Meghan. You can also say that Meghan didn't want to play by the Royal Family rules. However I am a huge believer in you're not born into servitude and if Harry/Meghan wanted out they can.If they want to discuss it in an interview, like Diana, they can. Why shouldn't they if they feel their reputation is damaged? Was it damaged by the RF pushing the stories potentially..

Gabrielle OMahony ● 2076d

Gabrielle, they have damaged themselves, if they went to California they did it because they wanted too. We've hardly seen their little boy, most have completely lost interest in them. You only have to read posts on Fbook, not interested not interested. They wanted to get away from everything, but don't want to be forgotten, so the only way they can do this is by causing trouble to get themselves noticed.

Barbara Stevens ● 2076d

Yet everyone jumps to say "not interested" compared to articles that have 0 comments as no-one has anything to say.Why shouldn't they keep Archie private like other celebrities?

Gabrielle OMahony ● 2076d

"Why shouldn't they keep Archie private like other celebrities?"Possibly Ms Stevens thinks that they are doing it in order to attract attention BY their secretiveness?

David Ainsworth ● 2076d

This is what I'm talking about: load up instagram with pictures "omg you wanted a quiet life why are you bombarding us with pictures" and then keep him out of the media "deliberately avoiding letting the public see the 10th in line to the throne"

Gabrielle OMahony ● 2076d

I am very much in the don’t care camp. I really can’t understand the obsession with her and indeed with any of the royals. Those most obsessed seem to be the ones most critical of her. Why?

Jonathan Callaway ● 2076d

"Those most obsessed seem to be the ones most critical of her. Why?"That's yer actual Freud, that is.

David Ainsworth ● 2076d

A serious point even Freud might have struggled with is the highly unedifying monstering of Meghan, and to a lesser extent Harry, in the “popular” press.  When they turn on someone, often but not always female, it can get very ugly indeed. Why?  For sales and clicks I guess. Would Freud agree?

Jonathan Callaway ● 2076d

Of course the cynics amongst us might think that Johnson had conspired with certain elements of the press to generate a not existent disagreement between Megan and "the Firm" to knock the Brexit  chaos in Ireland off the top of the news agenda?

Michael Ixer ● 2076d

I've always seen them as this century's version of Edward and Mrs Simpson and the parallels are obvious. though I hope they have a happier ending.The Murdoch press have always wanted to discredit the Royals and distance the Aussie base from any connection. That's mainly it surely.

Katrina Black ● 2076d

"Britain’s royal family has met members of autocratic Middle Eastern monarchies nearly once a fortnight since the crackdown on ‘Arab Spring’ protests began 10 years ago this month."I hope they were not seeking relationship advice!

Ed Robinson ● 2076d

"Would Freud agree?"Don't know. Still, what made me make that comment was a Freud quote that I vaguely remembered from somewhere and here it is:-"Let us consider the polarity of love and hate.... Now, clinical observation shows not only that love is with unexpected regularity accompanied by hate (ambivalence), and not only that in human relationships hate is frequently a forerunner of love, but also that in many circumstances hate changes into love and love into hate." (From "The Ego and the Id", by Sigmund Freud)He appears to recognise and describe this trait anyway, although he was writing about individuals, not crowds. As will be obvious, I am out of my depth here.

David Ainsworth ● 2076d

Ed, where was that quote about the meeting from?

Michael Ixer ● 2076d

I think the original source was here:https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-02-23-revealed-british-royals-met-tyrannical-middle-east-monarchies-over-200-times-since-arab-spring-erupted-10-years-ago/

Ed Robinson ● 2075d

I wholeheartedly agree with you Michael.  The Oprah interview has given the opportunity for all sorts of "side lines" to be exploited by the powers to be.It distracts attention from COVID, the terrible recognition of NHS staff, Brexit, Northern Ireland, the EU..... 

Ivonne Holliday ● 2075d

Thanks, Ed. Must admit I'm not sure it's really a surprise. There's been lots of reports about the company Prince Andrew keeps - I'm not talking about in the US - and being pragmatic the middle east has a lot of economic power so I suspect all governments have been happy to use royal influences. Democracy is somewhat illusionary - look at all the economic power wielded by global companies, particularly the oil industry and high tech ones.

Michael Ixer ● 2075d

David it's a very thin line  between love and hate!I would track the change in heart re Meghan back to when Harry told The Queen's right hand lady that 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets' re the tiara row before the wedding. They have never recovered from that disrespect even though it was Harry who said it. Up to then she was taken to British heart because the hoi polloi wanted Harry to be happy. There is also inevitably some racism at play here.But anyone who says they want to lead a private life doesn't spend two hours talking to Oprah Winfrey on TV!

Lucille Grant ● 2075d

which the media reported..... this is all rumours.  It's like being back in high school and people forming their view on people based on rumours.

Gabrielle OMahony ● 2075d

If it hadn't been the interview with Oprah, it would have just been some other distraction causing spurious rage. Just Google "Piers Morgan" plus "rage" (or "erupts" or "furiously" or "slams" or "blasts" or "rants").

David Ainsworth ● 2075d

"But anyone who says they want to lead a private life doesn't spend two hours talking to Oprah Winfrey on TV!"True, but I would suggest a parallel with the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. The more Brer Rabbit hits the Tar Baby, the more entrapped he becomes.Harry and Meghan have not learned the lesson from "War Games" (1983):-"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

David Ainsworth ● 2075d

By the way, for anyone who is worried, Brer Rabbit does trick Brer Fox and get freed from the Tar Baby.

David Ainsworth ● 2075d

"But anyone who says they want to lead a private life doesn't spend two hours talking to Oprah Winfrey on TV!"Exactly Lucille! Meghan hasn't shut her trap since they departed these shores to seek peace and sanctuary firstly in Canada, and now in the USA.  I'm sick of her poor-me 😫 victim statements, she's living a life of luxury and privilege that she could never have dreamed of before she married Harry.  Shut the #### up and stop being a media whore!

Sue Hammond ● 2075d

AI life of luxury she could never have dreamed of? This hardly smells of abject poverty: “ According to knownetworth.com, she made more than $50,000 per episode on Suits, and her annual salary was "around $450,000, which also include[d] around $80,000 worth of annual sponsorship/endorsements income." The site also reports that she was paid $187,000 for appearing in the film Remember Me and $171,429 for The Candidate, which were both released in 2010”If that’s poverty then I must be on skid row. Personally, I view anyone in the Royal family with pity. Life in a guided cage. How anyone can think they live the life of Riley and get cross about it is beyond me. Anyway, she should have known what she was getting into. Zero sympathy from me.

Freddie Francis ● 2075d

"Life in a guided cage."If that is unconscious or conscious, I like it either way.

David Ainsworth ● 2075d

Oops. It was rather Freudian 😏

Freddie Francis ● 2075d

@Freddie 11.53MM made a reasonable amount of money for what she did but her lifestyle with Harry now is off the scale of luxury, it was his money that purchased the £11,000,000 mansion in Santa Barbara they now live in.  There is no comparison to her lifestyle before marriage into the RF and to what it is now. 

Sue Hammond ● 2075d

Either way I don’t envy either of them.

Freddie Francis ● 2075d

Ivonne Holliday ● 2075d

The Windsors do seem to have difficulty in dealing with independent women: to misquote Oscar Wilde, to quarrel with one daughter-in-law may be regarded as a misfortune; to quarrel with two looks like carelessness. Actually, to me it looks much worse than carelessness by a wholly dysfunctional family.

Richard Carter ● 2075d

Ha ha, Ivonne. That just about sums it all up ...

Michael Ixer ● 2075d

Richard, thank god for your sanity! And also for your Guardian letter today.

Rosemary Cairns ● 2075d

"Either way I don’t envy either of them."Nor me.Earl Spencer at the funeral of Princess Diana, 1997:-"It is a tribute to her level-headedness and strength that despite the most bizarre-like life imaginable after her childhood, she remained intact, true to herself.There is no doubt that she was looking for a new direction in her life at this time. She talked endlessly of getting away from England, mainly because of the treatment that she received at the hands of the newspapers. I don't think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media, why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It is baffling. My own and only explanation is that genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum. It is a point to remember that of all the ironies about Diana, perhaps the greatest was this -- a girl given the name of the ancient goddess of hunting was, in the end, the most hunted person of the modern age.She would want us today to pledge ourselves to protecting her beloved boys William and Harry from a similar fate and I do this here Diana on your behalf. We will not allow them to suffer the anguish that used regularly to drive you to tearful despair."I wonder if Harry is trying to use the media to get revenge upon the media somehow? (Sorry, I know that it is pop psychology, but I couldn't blame him if he was).

David Ainsworth ● 2075d

Yes, Richard. I guess it might be that a sexist culture is embedded in the hereditary system? It was only in 2015 that laws in the Commonwealth abolished male preference primogeniture for those born after 2011 - so Princess Anne still rates below her younger brother Andrew, friend of Epstein and Maxwell, in the line of succession. Interesting, though, that the Queen and Process Anne both seem to be strong characters; perhaps there's an element of the class system in there as well? 

Michael Ixer ● 2075d

And apparently people are asking why Megan's alleged actions are being investigated but not the more serious questions raised about Andrew's alleged activities.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meghan-markle-prince-andrew-investigations_n_60404f4dc5b601179ec27be1

Michael Ixer ● 2075d

Precedence, old chap. It's precedence.

David Ainsworth ● 2075d

Some interesting comments from this link, of which this is just one example:"I do hope that this story of Andrew shouting at an aide in 2019 and insider suggestions that it possibly escalated beyond shouting is being investigated."Prince Andrew in raging bust-up with top royal aide: Palace altercation that was so serious Prince Charles was dragged in - Daily Mailhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7439195/Palace-altercation-Prince-Charles-dragged-in.html

Richard Carter ● 2075d

Ivonne. that cartoon did make me laugh, I always remember that story as a child. If she felt the pea under loads of mattresses. So if we felt a pee in our bed we must be a princess.

Barbara Stevens ● 2075d

" So if we felt a pee in our bed we must be a princess."I'm sorry to hear about you've had problems, Barbara, perhaps this would help:https://www.bedwettingtherapy.com/

Richard Carter ● 2075d

I didn't think I was, I was told  I was a little madam.

Barbara Stevens ● 2075d

Won't be watching, on Fbook Classic TV loads have said the same. I'm sick of seeing her in that black dress. Doing the same look as Diana did I'm so hurt. But perhaps Diana did have more reason to be hurt with Prince Charles carrying on with Camilla. But Meghan has Harry, but for how long will he stand it.

Barbara Stevens ● 2073d

"Royal officials signalled their determination not to be dragged into a tawdry tit-for-tat battle with the couple."Bwahahahahahhahhhahahhahahahahahahaahha!Mail on Sunday of course:-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html

David Ainsworth ● 2073d

@DAWhat's so hilarious about that?🙄

Sue Hammond ● 2073d

"Royal aides have branded Meghan Markle's interview as a "sideshow", hours before the "tell-all" exclusive is set to air.Meghan and Prince Harry will sit down with US chat show host Oprah Winfrey for their first interview since stepping down as senior members of the Royal Family. Palace aides have now brushed off the interview as nothing more than a "sideshow" that will not register with the British public, amid growing concerns of Prince Philip's health.They said: "On Monday, most people in Britain will be thinking about schools going back, getting the vaccine and, at the Palace particularly, looking forward to the Duke of Edinburgh coming out of hospital."This is just a sideshow."""The Queen, 94, will first deliver a major televised speech to a global audience this evening to celebrate Commonwealth Day. The special pre-recorded address will be broadcast at 5pm on the BBC ahead of the annual event on Monday, March 8 - and it will come just hours before Meghan and Prince Harry's Oprah interview is aired in America.""THE QUEEN will hold a dawn briefing with senior Palace aides in the aftermath of Meghan Markle's Oprah Winfrey interview, it has emerged, as the Royal Family prepares to strike back."(Express today)

David Ainsworth ● 2073d

She is, Barbara Stevens, quite simply wonderful, them both, and I wish them all happiness in their new home as any decent human being would.

Clifford Cowell ● 2073d

@DAYou seem to be obsessed with this spat.  I hope you enjoy the Markle show tomorrow night.

Sue Hammond ● 2073d

Meanwhile, the main story (the main story!!) in the Sunday Times is that her maj won't be watching the TV tonight or tomorrow, whenever it's on.Tomorrow's main story? THE QUEEN DRINKS CUP OF TEA?And Sue Hammond asks why people are obsessed with this story: for my part, although I'm not obsessed by it in the slightest, it's fascinating because it's so damned funny, especially seeing these stuffed shorts at the palace behaving so snottily.

Richard Carter ● 2073d

Spat, yes.Show, no.

David Ainsworth ● 2073d

Sorry Clifford, one simply didn't understand what you had written. Perhaps you had beaten me to a lunch time drink.

Barbara Stevens ● 2073d

All this about Meghan and Harry, which conveniently takes the pressure off the palace, which obviously wants us to forget about the turd in the room, Prince Andrew:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/meghan-markle-harry-andrew-royal-family-b1812800.html

Richard Carter ● 2073d

Defund the royals!

Sean Hodges ● 2073d

Why?  They bring billions into this country.  It only costs £0.70 per resident in the UK.  In 2019, the Royal family brought in some £430 million. That is an incredible return!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2073d

I suspect the true cost of the Royals won't actually be known until they are privatised.A bit like nuclear energy which was said to be free for years until they tried to privatised it and realised they hadn't taken into account the decommissioning cost!

Ed Robinson ● 2073d

I hope they are never EVER privatised!  Goodness me, do you really want another fiasco like the private contracting imposed on the NHS?The Royal family do work very hard, at least the higher ranking ones and they do bring in an enormous amount of money into the country. Privatise the monarchy to get Trump style of governance? No thank you!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2073d

Love the comment by former Real Housewives of New York star, Bethenny Frankel: “Cry me a river ....the plight of being a game show host, fairly unknown actress, to suffering in a palace with tiaras and 7 figure wedding for TWO WHOLE YEARS to being a household star with Oprah on speed dial, fetching 7 million for interviews, hundred of millions in media deals” No idea who Bethenny Frankel is, but I think she speaks for many of us!

Martine Guy ● 2073d

Well, let's hope that her mind change today speaks for many of you. "Former Real Housewives of New York star Bethenny Frankel caused controversy prior to the interview's airing on Sunday night, mocking Meghan for attempting to attract sympathy even though she had been 'suffering in a palace with tiaras and a seven-figure wedding'. But the reality star backflipped after watching the intimate interview, during which Meghan confessed to contemplating suicide amid pressures of Royal life.  'I watched Meghan & Harry sit down,' Frankel wrote. 'Emotional distress & racism must feel suffocating & powerless. I'm a polarizing, unfiltered (often to a fault) flawed person with a voice. When I heard of the interview,during a pandemic, it felt like a surprising choice. I'm sorry if it hurt or offended you.'" (Daily Mail)

David Ainsworth ● 2072d

I look forward to watching it tonight, popcorn time!😋Here's a perspective from across the pond, the New York Post:Meghan Markle reveals he true self in Oprah interview: Devinehttps://nypost.com/2021/03/07/meghan-markle-reveals-he-true-self-in-oprah-interview-devine/

Sue Hammond ● 2072d

It's succeeding: this story had knocked the dispute about the miserly NHS pay rise off the top of the news. Johnson and Sunak must be pleased.

Michael Ixer ● 2072d

You'll get a real perspective from this piece, which sets out the way the tabloids (the real villains in this affair) have treated the Cambridge and the Sussexes so differently:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Richard Carter ● 2072d

Those are great examples of our way of looking at things. A "bad" person cannot do a "good" thing, so the thing must be defined as "bad". The very same thing done by a person whom we define as a "good" person is obviously a "good" thing.Because the world is comprised of good good people and bad bad people. Always has been, always will be. It makes everything easier to understand. And wrong, of course.

David Ainsworth ● 2072d

Spot on. I remember reading these before and marvelling at the presses' manipulative double standard.

Maxine Campbell ● 2072d

Contrary to what I said before, I did watch the interview.  It was edited and am sure more "juicy" bits will be published.I think Harry is certainly very much Diana's son, more than William?  No, but William has been groomed to be king.Is Megan really thick and awful?  I do not think so, but she certainly is "different" just because her background is so different.  Forget about colour because it is ludicrous!Piers Morgan?  Well, he is as flexible as an iron bar and has no clue as to differences in cultures.  I do not think Harry and Meghan "threw hand grenades against the monarchy".  Far from it.I think it highlighted how difficult it is for "outsiders" to join the Firm (the Queen was always warm and welcoming by way).If you are not born into the Royal Family, life can be difficult.I wonder if that is why the monarchies of the 17th to 18th century were so "choosy" with regard to future spouses. But am not too sure that the Royal Family is the problem, perhaps the "aides" are certainly a pain!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2072d

It's been truly interesting this morning to see the reactions to the interview: cue hysterical outrage from the Mail, the Telegraph, etc. Just imagine how worse the reaction would have been if Harry and Meghan had consorted with a sex trafficker and paedophile who was convicted of carrying out the most disgusting crimes over a long period of time, and then skulked here at home, cowardly refusing - over the course of a year - to give evidence in the USA over the accusations against one of said paedophile's (alleged) pimps.Oh, wait a minute, that was Andrew. Where is the outrage over his behaviour?

Richard Carter ● 2071d

Actually, there's an interesting difference in treatment from the Mail and the Express, one being full-on hostile and the other, rather sorrowful:

Richard Carter ● 2071d

Personally, I think more damage is being done by the press than by the whole interview.What is interesting is that the gutter press are proving Harry right and confirming that the tabloids are in fact vile!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2071d

Robert Shrimsley in the FT magazine at the weekend had a brilliant take on this: speculating that the royal family is now working directly with Netflix to develop future seasons of The Crown: I particularly liked the idea of the Queen taking a cameo role as Helen Mirren. https://www.ft.com/content/2be21927-fa18-4021-9ffd-ad5c43c01402

Richard Carter ● 2070d

Ah,  the online version missed out the accompanying illustration. Here it is:

Richard Carter ● 2070d

That's very odd: my last post (with the illustration from the article)  appears in the New.PutneySW16 site but not the old one. What's going on ?

Richard Carter ● 2070d

I'm curious to know what they hope to achieve with this interview, I'm also wondering just how much Harry is under the thumb, to release the interview at the same time as his 99 y.o. grandfather is in hospital for the 3rd week seems thoughtless if not spiteful.

Adam Tripp ● 2070d

Adam I agree, has anybody heard now how Prince Philip is.

Barbara Stevens ● 2070d

I'd guess that Harry and Meghan would not have the power (or the money?) to stop the process, once it was running, after the interview had taken place. They had just heard the news of them being stripped of their royal patronages, before the interview took place, so maybe they would not have pulled out then either. I wonder if ITV could have delayed it. They didn't anyhow.

David Ainsworth ● 2070d