Or you could say, and some people are, that by not identifying the person who made the comments you are putting the whole family under suspicion. Prince William found it necessary to say publicly that the royal family is not a racist family.
We recorded the interview and watched it in several sittings; by the time we'd finished watching it felt like old news because it's been picked over so thoroughly in various media streams. I also wanted to get the perspective of a few members of the younger generation whom I saw at the weekend. I, for example - a *cough* member of the older generation *cough* here in the UK - grew up knowing that the female members of the family curtsey to the queen even in private as a mark of respect and recognition of her position. I didn't know whether that had reached the younger generation, but certainly my early-thirties-aged daughter knew.
I agree they were calm and dignified during the interview and some things needed saying. As others have observed, I can't think that giving an interview to a big name such as Oprah was the best way of saying it or was the way to a life away from the attention of the media which they say they want and which has to be possible, even as a royal, if you are determined. (Princess Anne and Prince Edward spring to mind.)
Regarding their security, my understanding is that they now live in a gated complex.
Saying it to Oprah was the best way to say it for them. Their lies would not be challenged.
Or you could say, and some people are, that by not identifying the person who made the comments you are putting the whole family under suspicion. Prince William found it necessary to say publicly that the royal family is not a racist family.
We recorded the interview and watched it in several sittings; by the time we'd finished watching it felt like old news because it's been picked over so thoroughly in various media streams. I also wanted to get the perspective of a few members of the younger generation whom I saw at the weekend. I, for example - a *cough* member of the older generation *cough* here in the UK - grew up knowing that the female members of the family curtsey to the queen even in private as a mark of respect and recognition of her position. I didn't know whether that had reached the younger generation, but certainly my early-thirties-aged daughter knew.
I agree they were calm and dignified during the interview and some things needed saying. As others have observed, I can't think that giving an interview to a big name such as Oprah was the best way of saying it or was the way to a life away from the attention of the media which they say they want and which has to be possible, even as a royal, if you are determined. (Princess Anne and Prince Edward spring to mind.)
Regarding their security, my understanding is that they now live in a gated complex.
Saying it to Oprah was the best way to say it for them. Their lies would not be challenged.
I was going to challenge your comments on lies, but then I realized you would not give a straight answer, or would move the goalposts. So it goes.
Saying it to Oprah was the best way to say it for them. Their lies would not be challenged.
Sigh. I'll say again that I don't think that "lies" is a fair way to describe the opinions of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I think several of their reported statements are incorrect, but I think it at least likely that they think they're true.
Now, the act of making incorrect statements itself distresses me, because I think everyone should endeavour to achieve scrupulous accuracy, and that's more important than ever if what you're doing is making a public statement, rather than chatting to a couple of friends in the pub.
And the fact that I know some of their statements are incorrect leads me to suspect the accuracy of some of the statements I don't know about.
Or you could say, and some people are, that by not identifying the person who made the comments you are putting the whole family under suspicion. Prince William found it necessary to say publicly that the royal family is not a racist family.
We recorded the interview and watched it in several sittings; by the time we'd finished watching it felt like old news because it's been picked over so thoroughly in various media streams. I also wanted to get the perspective of a few members of the younger generation whom I saw at the weekend. I, for example - a *cough* member of the older generation *cough* here in the UK - grew up knowing that the female members of the family curtsey to the queen even in private as a mark of respect and recognition of her position. I didn't know whether that had reached the younger generation, but certainly my early-thirties-aged daughter knew.
I agree they were calm and dignified during the interview and some things needed saying. As others have observed, I can't think that giving an interview to a big name such as Oprah was the best way of saying it or was the way to a life away from the attention of the media which they say they want and which has to be possible, even as a royal, if you are determined. (Princess Anne and Prince Edward spring to mind.)
Regarding their security, my understanding is that they now live in a gated complex.
Saying it to Oprah was the best way to say it for them. Their lies would not be challenged.
I was going to challenge your comments on lies, but then I realized you would not give a straight answer, or would move the goalposts. So it goes.
You have not challenged because there is nothing to challenge
Saying it to Oprah was the best way to say it for them. Their lies would not be challenged.
Sigh. I'll say again that I don't think that "lies" is a fair way to describe the opinions of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I think several of their reported statements are incorrect, but I think it at least likely that they think they're true.
Now, the act of making incorrect statements itself distresses me, because I think everyone should endeavour to achieve scrupulous accuracy, and that's more important than ever if what you're doing is making a public statement, rather than chatting to a couple of friends in the pub.
And the fact that I know some of their statements are incorrect leads me to suspect the accuracy of some of the statements I don't know about.
I don't think many of us would disagree that some of the things said in the Oprah interview were inaccurate as far as our understanding, and that of the press commentary in the UK, but saying that Harry and Meghan were lying says that they were deliberately misleading people and trying to deceive. I would suggest that they were under several misapprehensions and seeing things very partially from their points of view. Now, knowing that they were both distressed, and that that can have a distorting effect on comprehension and memory, it would seem to be taking a very unnuanced view and unfair to categorise those misapprehensions and different viewpoints as lies. For starters, it doesn't take into account their distress and the difficulties they had to deal with.
I don't think many of us would disagree that some of the things said in the Oprah interview were inaccurate as far as our understanding, and that of the press commentary in the UK, but saying that Harry and Meghan were lying says that they were deliberately misleading people and trying to deceive. I would suggest that they were under several misapprehensions and seeing things very partially from their points of view. Now, knowing that they were both distressed, and that that can have a distorting effect on comprehension and memory, it would seem to be taking a very unnuanced view and unfair to categorise those misapprehensions and different viewpoints as lies. For starters, it doesn't take into account their distress and the difficulties they had to deal with.
I think this is all fair comment.
It's nevertheless hard to believe this was the smartest and most healing option for dealing with starting a new life away from the in-laws. Especially when there are children involved. It's one thing to jump on top of media invasion of privacy or Piers Morgan's snarky comments - ineffective as it ultimately always is to tangle with the entertainment press in that way. But where family is concerned it seems bridges have been burned.
I'd be interested in some of the particular things that were said, @Telford , that you know are lies and the evidence for them being lies.
OK I will give you some off the top of my head
1. The potential skin colour of the baby. She alleged that this had been questioned. Why should this have been? The father is white. The mother looks to be white. Anyone with any sense would assume that the baby would look white and he does
2. That Archie is not a prince because of his colour. They would have been told that greqat grandchildrten of the monarch could not be princes
3. That she was not allowed access to her passport. She had 13 foreign holidays during this period
4. That she had 2 weddings and the big wedding was not a proper wedding.
5. She did not make Kate cry. Kate made her cry. She waited all this time to reveal this to the world
6. She never googled Prince Harry. She just flew thousands of miles to go on a blind date
7. Protection was removed so they had to leave the country. It was the other way round
I don't think many of us would disagree that some of the things said in the Oprah interview were inaccurate as far as our understanding, and that of the press commentary in the UK, but saying that Harry and Meghan were lying says that they were deliberately misleading people and trying to deceive. I would suggest that they were under several misapprehensions and seeing things very partially from their points of view. Now, knowing that they were both distressed, and that that can have a distorting effect on comprehension and memory, it would seem to be taking a very unnuanced view and unfair to categorise those misapprehensions and different viewpoints as lies. For starters, it doesn't take into account their distress and the difficulties they had to deal with.
I think this is all fair comment.
It's nevertheless hard to believe this was the smartest and most healing option for dealing with starting a new life away from the in-laws. Especially when there are children involved. It's one thing to jump on top of media invasion of privacy or Piers Morgan's snarky comments - ineffective as it ultimately always is to tangle with the entertainment press in that way. But where family is concerned it seems bridges have been burned.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people who live under such freakish conditions to have any kind of normal family relations.
I don't think many of us would disagree that some of the things said in the Oprah interview were inaccurate as far as our understanding, and that of the press commentary in the UK, but saying that Harry and Meghan were lying says that they were deliberately misleading people and trying to deceive. I would suggest that they were under several misapprehensions and seeing things very partially from their points of view. Now, knowing that they were both distressed, and that that can have a distorting effect on comprehension and memory, it would seem to be taking a very unnuanced view and unfair to categorise those misapprehensions and different viewpoints as lies. For starters, it doesn't take into account their distress and the difficulties they had to deal with.
I think this is all fair comment.
It's nevertheless hard to believe this was the smartest and most healing option for dealing with starting a new life away from the in-laws. Especially when there are children involved. It's one thing to jump on top of media invasion of privacy or Piers Morgan's snarky comments - ineffective as it ultimately always is to tangle with the entertainment press in that way. But where family is concerned it seems bridges have been burned.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people who live under such freakish conditions to have any kind of normal family relations.
Who expects normal? Who can even define 'normal'? In some family circles I know of 'normal' reactions to family fallouts involve petrol bombs and bricks through the window. Do you think 'normal' means going to Relate or bringing in a counsellor or advisor? If only.
By definition, I wouldn't expect anyone who gets involved with the Royals to have normal family relations! Normal people don't possess the wealth, privilege, resources etc that they possess. So 'normal' was never going to be an option anyway.
But I don't know why any of that should prevent them from behaving more wisely than, in my opinion, they have done, or what that has to do with 'normal'.
I don't think many of us would disagree that some of the things said in the Oprah interview were inaccurate as far as our understanding, and that of the press commentary in the UK, but saying that Harry and Meghan were lying says that they were deliberately misleading people and trying to deceive. I would suggest that they were under several misapprehensions and seeing things very partially from their points of view. Now, knowing that they were both distressed, and that that can have a distorting effect on comprehension and memory, it would seem to be taking a very unnuanced view and unfair to categorise those misapprehensions and different viewpoints as lies. For starters, it doesn't take into account their distress and the difficulties they had to deal with.
I think this is all fair comment.
It's nevertheless hard to believe this was the smartest and most healing option for dealing with starting a new life away from the in-laws. Especially when there are children involved. It's one thing to jump on top of media invasion of privacy or Piers Morgan's snarky comments - ineffective as it ultimately always is to tangle with the entertainment press in that way. But where family is concerned it seems bridges have been burned.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people who live under such freakish conditions to have any kind of normal family relations.
Who expects normal? Who can even define 'normal'? In some family circles I know of 'normal' reactions to family fallouts involve petrol bombs and bricks through the window. Do you think 'normal' means going to Relate or bringing in a counsellor or advisor? If only.
By definition, I wouldn't expect anyone who gets involved with the Royals to have normal family relations! Normal people don't possess the wealth, privilege, resources etc that they possess. So 'normal' was never going to be an option anyway.
But I don't know why any of that should prevent them from behaving more wisely than, in my opinion, they have done, or what that has to do with 'normal'.
I agree that the interview, certainly, was probably not a wise move.
I don't think many of us would disagree that some of the things said in the Oprah interview were inaccurate as far as our understanding, and that of the press commentary in the UK, but saying that Harry and Meghan were lying says that they were deliberately misleading people and trying to deceive. I would suggest that they were under several misapprehensions and seeing things very partially from their points of view. Now, knowing that they were both distressed, and that that can have a distorting effect on comprehension and memory, it would seem to be taking a very unnuanced view and unfair to categorise those misapprehensions and different viewpoints as lies. For starters, it doesn't take into account their distress and the difficulties they had to deal with.
I think this is all fair comment.
It's nevertheless hard to believe this was the smartest and most healing option for dealing with starting a new life away from the in-laws. Especially when there are children involved. It's one thing to jump on top of media invasion of privacy or Piers Morgan's snarky comments - ineffective as it ultimately always is to tangle with the entertainment press in that way. But where family is concerned it seems bridges have been burned.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people who live under such freakish conditions to have any kind of normal family relations.
Who expects normal? Who can even define 'normal'? In some family circles I know of 'normal' reactions to family fallouts involve petrol bombs and bricks through the window. Do you think 'normal' means going to Relate or bringing in a counsellor or advisor? If only.
By definition, I wouldn't expect anyone who gets involved with the Royals to have normal family relations! Normal people don't possess the wealth, privilege, resources etc that they possess. So 'normal' was never going to be an option anyway.
But I don't know why any of that should prevent them from behaving more wisely than, in my opinion, they have done, or what that has to do with 'normal'.
The entire setup seems designed to produce emotional cripples - why would any of them behave wisely?
I read somewhere recently (sorry, can't recall where) that it's possible that the Queen herself is partly responsible for the current setup, having established the monarchy as The (Family) Firm in order to make it more relevant...whatever that may mean - shades of *church-speak*!.
TBF I'm more than a little fed-up with the circus that is Sussexes but @Bishops Finger you questioned up-thread whether instances of MM's "truth" might be in error, so hear goes.
No HRH for Archie
Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.
When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.
No title for Archie
Not true, at least not as MM tells it.
The subsidiary title to Duke of Sussex is Earl of Dumbarton, so that could be used for Archie now. However, it was announced by his parents at the time of his birth that they wouldn't be using it for him at least until he reaches 18.
No protection for Archie None of Charles's grandchildren have their own protection. The children of Anne and Edward have never had Personal Protection Officers and Andrew's daughters had theirs removed c10 years ago.
All protection for members of the royal family is decided by a Home Office team, nothing to do with the monarch or Household.
Meghan's passport taken away
Cannot be true, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to do the official tours. The only person not to have a passport is HMQ, all the others have on. The only difference is that MM has a US passport (she never applied for British citizenship).
In any case, unless on an official trip MM will have had to look after her own passport - so for things like the New York baby shower, plus other holidays in Ibiza, Italy, Greece, etc, as well as the flight to Canada.
Who made who cry
FFS! I suspect both were in tears but, in any case, since MM said she cried and Catherine went round with flowers, card and apology, why bring it up.
What is known is that MM changed arrangements for a dress fitting of bridesmaids, less than 3 weeks after Catherine had given birth to Louis. With one older child needing to be collected from school, a two year old to be fitted and a newborn this may just have been stressful!
Sometimes, there's a difference between what *should* have happened and what *did* happen. If someone takes the "should" to be the only possibility, they'll have a hard time even considering the possibility that something else may have happened.
People try but fail, have bad days, throw tantrums, say things they don't really mean, even do bad things on purpose. Same with procedures and systems and protocol, both in the creation and implementation of them.
That can leave people who actually experienced the "did" alone in the cold, because other people are so focused on the "should".
TBF I'm more than a little fed-up with the circus that is Sussexes but @Bishops Finger you questioned up-thread whether instances of MM's "truth" might be in error, so hear goes.
No HRH for Archie
Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.
When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.
No title for Archie
Not true, at least not as MM tells it.
The subsidiary title to Duke of Sussex is Earl of Dumbarton, so that could be used for Archie now. However, it was announced by his parents at the time of his birth that they wouldn't be using it for him at least until he reaches 18.
No protection for Archie None of Charles's grandchildren have their own protection. The children of Anne and Edward have never had Personal Protection Officers and Andrew's daughters had theirs removed c10 years ago.
All protection for members of the royal family is decided by a Home Office team, nothing to do with the monarch or Household.
Meghan's passport taken away
Cannot be true, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to do the official tours. The only person not to have a passport is HMQ, all the others have on. The only difference is that MM has a US passport (she never applied for British citizenship).
In any case, unless on an official trip MM will have had to look after her own passport - so for things like the New York baby shower, plus other holidays in Ibiza, Italy, Greece, etc, as well as the flight to Canada.
Who made who cry
FFS! I suspect both were in tears but, in any case, since MM said she cried and Catherine went round with flowers, card and apology, why bring it up.
What is known is that MM changed arrangements for a dress fit…
No HRH for Archie
Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.
When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.
Enough!
Was Serene Highness ever used in the UK or any of its constituents? My recollection is that it was not, those being serene being neither imperial or royal.
AIUI, this came up because the paparazzi had excoriated Meghan for making *Katherine* cry. Per M, the real story was just the opposite.
That was the one bit of the entire interview that I thought was a bit much: too much detail and controlled but visible anger. But it was M's chance to set the story straight.
AIUI, the press has, for years, lauded Katherine and reamed M for doing the same thing. E.g., patting and caressing their baby bumps. With K, she was ooooed and ahhhed over. But M was accused of all sorts of awfulness, just for touching her baby bump.
No HRH for Archie
Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.
When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.
Enough!
Was Serene Highness ever used in the UK or any of its constituents? My recollection is that it was not, those being serene being neither imperial or royal.
AIUI, this came up because the paparazzi had excoriated Meghan for making *Katherine* cry. Per M, the real story was just the opposite.
That was the one bit of the entire interview that I thought was a bit much: too much detail and controlled but visible anger. But it was M's chance to set the story straight.
AIUI, the press has, for years, lauded Katherine and reamed M for doing the same thing. E.g., patting and caressing their baby bumps. With K, she was ooooed and ahhhed over. But M was accused of all sorts of awfulness, just for touching her baby bump.
Am I supposed to believe M on this when she has been proved to be wrong on all the rest ?
1. The potential skin colour of the baby. She alleged that this had been questioned. Why should this have been? The father is white. The mother looks to be white. Anyone with any sense would assume that the baby would look white and he does
Why would anyone assume that? The gene remains. I know someone of mixed race heritage. Her mother is a blonde haired English woman and her father Jamaican. She herself is light skinned with straight light brown hair. She is married to a white man yet one of her children is darker skinned with Afro hair. This is not uncommon.
Was Serene Highness ever used in the UK or any of its constituents? My recollection is that it was not, those being serene being neither imperial or royal.
The Battenbergs, maybe
I think not, but regardless of whatever title they had in Germany, they did not get any title of Serenity in the UK. Just an earldom on the disclaimer of any German titles.
Meghan's passport taken away
Cannot be true, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to do the official tours. The only person not to have a passport is HMQ, all the others have on. The only difference is that MM has a US passport (she never applied for British citizenship).
In any case, unless on an official trip MM will have had to look after her own passport - so for things like the New York baby shower, plus other holidays in Ibiza, Italy, Greece, etc, as well as the flight to Canada.
That's all supposition on your part (if the story was they'd burnt the passport or still had it that might be different).
Who made who cry
FFS! I suspect both were in tears but, in any case, since MM said she cried and Catherine went round with flowers, card and apology, why bring it up.
What is known is that MM changed arrangements for a dress fitting of bridesmaids, less than 3 weeks after Catherine had given birth to Louis. With one older child needing to be collected from school, a two year old to be fitted and a newborn this may just have been stressful!
Enough!
Both in tears makes sense, but the papers had pushed the evil Megan version, I can see why (notably at that point the same standard should also apply to that), also it's been a year.
1. The potential skin colour of the baby. She alleged that this had been questioned. Why should this have been? The father is white. The mother looks to be white. Anyone with any sense would assume that the baby would look white and he does
Why would anyone assume that? The gene remains. I know someone of mixed race heritage. Her mother is a blonde haired English woman and her father Jamaican. She herself is light skinned with straight light brown hair. She is married to a white man yet one of her children is darker skinned with Afro hair. This is not uncommon.
{Full disclosure: I originally heard the idea on an episode of the hospital drama "E.R.". tl;dr: white girl in the US South is involved with an African-American boy, and becomes pregnant. Her violent father isn't exactly in favor of African Americans. Peter (Afr.-Am. doctor) delivers the baby, then keeps an eye on the girl and the baby until the baby's color becomes obvious, to make sure they're safe. Fortunately (in that situation), the baby turned out to have light skin.
IIRC, that was supposed to be a matter of hours or days. I didn't know whether or not that's accurate, so I looked for confirmation. Per that thread, sometimes it can take years for a child's skin color to settle in.}
Serene Highness in UK the parents of Princess May of Teck (who later became Queen Mary) were their Serene Highnesses the duke and duchess of Teck. I would imagine that their daughter May would also have been HSH.
Mary of Teck’s mother Princess Mary Adelaide was a first cousin of Victoria; her father was the Duke of Cambridge. She was unkindly but appropriately known as Fat Mary and was finally married off to the equally unprepossessing Francis of Teck in her 30s. Mary ( known as May) escaped marriage to the charmless Albert Victor ( son of the then Prince of Wales) by his death, married the spare & ended up as a proper HRH and queen to boot.
Rather than the "pants on fire" interpretation, is it at all possible Meghan means that her passport had to br looked after by staff and only given to her when she needed it - e.g. for these holidays?
Serene Highness in UK the parents of Princess May of Teck (who later became Queen Mary) were their Serene Highnesses the duke and duchess of Teck. I would imagine that their daughter May would also have been HSH.
I'm not sure exactly about UK titles but given that the Royal family from 1714 till the middle of WW1 were clearly, openly and proudly of German origin several times over, German titles would certainly have been in use. Serene Highnesses were members of the aristocracy who were Princes of the Holy Roman Empire or later the Second German Empire where the title of 'Prince' was much more widely used, Bismarck was a Prince for example.
'Serene' Highness comes from the German title 'Durchlaucht' (able to be seen through- clear) just as one of the meanings of 'serene' in English is cloudless,clear.
Koenigliche Hoheit (Royal Highness) or Kaiserliche Hoheit (Imperial Highness) were reserved for immediate members of the royal or imperial family.
Rather than the "pants on fire" interpretation, is it at all possible Meghan means that her passport had to br looked after by staff and only given to her when she needed it - e.g. for these holidays?
That sounds to me (as above) consistent with the initial reports though the mirror reports the (ever reliable) sun saying 'didnt see'.
Though I wouldnt be surprised if royal tours are handled differently to my holidays, so could be more absolute.
and also seems to be some chance for selectiveness in when 'entering the family' started. A lot of the holidays seem to be pre wedding.
The baby shower on the otherhand would need more explaining.
In any case the reporters had already made their comments the day before.
Comments
I was going to challenge your comments on lies, but then I realized you would not give a straight answer, or would move the goalposts. So it goes.
Sigh. I'll say again that I don't think that "lies" is a fair way to describe the opinions of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I think several of their reported statements are incorrect, but I think it at least likely that they think they're true.
Now, the act of making incorrect statements itself distresses me, because I think everyone should endeavour to achieve scrupulous accuracy, and that's more important than ever if what you're doing is making a public statement, rather than chatting to a couple of friends in the pub.
And the fact that I know some of their statements are incorrect leads me to suspect the accuracy of some of the statements I don't know about.
But I don't think "lies" is fair.
You have not challenged because there is nothing to challenge
OK I change it to untruths
Are you perhaps an intimate insider of the Royal Family?
Pretty certain a subscription to Hello! doesn't count...
I know they are lies because I heard the 'interviews'
I do not have the honour of being an 'intimate insider'
So, hearing one side of the story proves the existence of lies? A new, and rather alarming, concept, I fear.
As you are not an *intimate insider*, why do you hate Meghan so much?
I think your hatred of *Markle*, as you disrespectfully refer to her in several posts, has been commented on by others.
I also rather doubt that you have the experience of a judge, if that is what you are implying.
I also rather doubt that you have the experience of a judge but you have found me guilty of hatred.
As would I, but caution is needed, as lawyers may be privy to what @Telford says in reply.
I think this is all fair comment.
It's nevertheless hard to believe this was the smartest and most healing option for dealing with starting a new life away from the in-laws. Especially when there are children involved. It's one thing to jump on top of media invasion of privacy or Piers Morgan's snarky comments - ineffective as it ultimately always is to tangle with the entertainment press in that way. But where family is concerned it seems bridges have been burned.
OK I will give you some off the top of my head
1. The potential skin colour of the baby. She alleged that this had been questioned. Why should this have been? The father is white. The mother looks to be white. Anyone with any sense would assume that the baby would look white and he does
2. That Archie is not a prince because of his colour. They would have been told that greqat grandchildrten of the monarch could not be princes
3. That she was not allowed access to her passport. She had 13 foreign holidays during this period
4. That she had 2 weddings and the big wedding was not a proper wedding.
5. She did not make Kate cry. Kate made her cry. She waited all this time to reveal this to the world
6. She never googled Prince Harry. She just flew thousands of miles to go on a blind date
7. Protection was removed so they had to leave the country. It was the other way round
It's up to them prove they are true. I have pointed out where they cannot be true
Who expects normal? Who can even define 'normal'? In some family circles I know of 'normal' reactions to family fallouts involve petrol bombs and bricks through the window. Do you think 'normal' means going to Relate or bringing in a counsellor or advisor? If only.
By definition, I wouldn't expect anyone who gets involved with the Royals to have normal family relations! Normal people don't possess the wealth, privilege, resources etc that they possess. So 'normal' was never going to be an option anyway.
But I don't know why any of that should prevent them from behaving more wisely than, in my opinion, they have done, or what that has to do with 'normal'.
I think not. Innocent until proven guilty, no?
Your opinion as to what cannot be true is worthless without some sort of back-up.
I agree that the interview, certainly, was probably not a wise move.
If you bail out of a plane, you may be lucky and land on a bale of wool or straw.
No HRH for Archie
Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.
When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.
No title for Archie
Not true, at least not as MM tells it.
The subsidiary title to Duke of Sussex is Earl of Dumbarton, so that could be used for Archie now. However, it was announced by his parents at the time of his birth that they wouldn't be using it for him at least until he reaches 18.
No protection for Archie
None of Charles's grandchildren have their own protection. The children of Anne and Edward have never had Personal Protection Officers and Andrew's daughters had theirs removed c10 years ago.
All protection for members of the royal family is decided by a Home Office team, nothing to do with the monarch or Household.
Meghan's passport taken away
Cannot be true, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to do the official tours. The only person not to have a passport is HMQ, all the others have on. The only difference is that MM has a US passport (she never applied for British citizenship).
In any case, unless on an official trip MM will have had to look after her own passport - so for things like the New York baby shower, plus other holidays in Ibiza, Italy, Greece, etc, as well as the flight to Canada.
Who made who cry
FFS! I suspect both were in tears but, in any case, since MM said she cried and Catherine went round with flowers, card and apology, why bring it up.
What is known is that MM changed arrangements for a dress fitting of bridesmaids, less than 3 weeks after Catherine had given birth to Louis. With one older child needing to be collected from school, a two year old to be fitted and a newborn this may just have been stressful!
Enough!
People try but fail, have bad days, throw tantrums, say things they don't really mean, even do bad things on purpose. Same with procedures and systems and protocol, both in the creation and implementation of them.
That can leave people who actually experienced the "did" alone in the cold, because other people are so focused on the "should".
FWIW, YMMV.
Can't argue with any of this
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Was Serene Highness ever used in the UK or any of its constituents? My recollection is that it was not, those being serene being neither imperial or royal.
AIUI, this came up because the paparazzi had excoriated Meghan for making *Katherine* cry. Per M, the real story was just the opposite.
That was the one bit of the entire interview that I thought was a bit much: too much detail and controlled but visible anger. But it was M's chance to set the story straight.
AIUI, the press has, for years, lauded Katherine and reamed M for doing the same thing. E.g., patting and caressing their baby bumps. With K, she was ooooed and ahhhed over. But M was accused of all sorts of awfulness, just for touching her baby bump.
The Battenbergs, maybe
Am I supposed to believe M on this when she has been proved to be wrong on all the rest ?
If I read of a pilot bailing out, I would wonder why he was in a waterlogged plane.
(Merriam Webster does tag the 'bale' usage as 'British')
Why would anyone assume that? The gene remains. I know someone of mixed race heritage. Her mother is a blonde haired English woman and her father Jamaican. She herself is light skinned with straight light brown hair. She is married to a white man yet one of her children is darker skinned with Afro hair. This is not uncommon.
I think not, but regardless of whatever title they had in Germany, they did not get any title of Serenity in the UK. Just an earldom on the disclaimer of any German titles.
Both in tears makes sense, but the papers had pushed the evil Megan version, I can see why (notably at that point the same standard should also apply to that), also it's been a year.
And sometimes the child's permanent color doesn't show for a while (What To Expect). That link is for sorting that out, re biracial kids and their bio or adoptive parents.
{Full disclosure: I originally heard the idea on an episode of the hospital drama "E.R.". tl;dr: white girl in the US South is involved with an African-American boy, and becomes pregnant. Her violent father isn't exactly in favor of African Americans. Peter (Afr.-Am. doctor) delivers the baby, then keeps an eye on the girl and the baby until the baby's color becomes obvious, to make sure they're safe. Fortunately (in that situation), the baby turned out to have light skin.
IIRC, that was supposed to be a matter of hours or days. I didn't know whether or not that's accurate, so I looked for confirmation. Per that thread, sometimes it can take years for a child's skin color to settle in.}
Yes, but not UK titles.
'Serene' Highness comes from the German title 'Durchlaucht' (able to be seen through- clear) just as one of the meanings of 'serene' in English is cloudless,clear.
Koenigliche Hoheit (Royal Highness) or Kaiserliche Hoheit (Imperial Highness) were reserved for immediate members of the royal or imperial family.
Yes, and with no real proof that either theme is accurate.
That sounds to me (as above) consistent with the initial reports though the mirror reports the (ever reliable) sun saying 'didnt see'.
Though I wouldnt be surprised if royal tours are handled differently to my holidays, so could be more absolute.
and also seems to be some chance for selectiveness in when 'entering the family' started. A lot of the holidays seem to be pre wedding.
The baby shower on the otherhand would need more explaining.
In any case the reporters had already made their comments the day before.