Well who will be watching?

[carrie]

I don't have a TV but just having returned from my little break I must admit I did watch CNN there.
Apparently Megan Markle is to give an interview to Oprah Winfrey which is going to be seen all over the world.
How very exciting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was surprised at the level of interest being shown.
Come on now fess up who is going to watch?

[newcastle]

Me for one.

With much the same anticipation as if I were going to a public execution.

I would anticipate a huge difference in reaction either side of the pond, with Brits being annoyed at Meghan’s antics (and surely this is largely down to her) whilst Americans take the part of one of their own.

Airing your dirty linen in public rarely has a good outcome....apart from the zillions Oprah will make. I gather the Sussexes are spilling the beans for nowt!

My own opinion - if Meghan goes overboard - is that they should be stripped of their titles so they are no longer TRHs The Duke & Duchess of Sussex..... but Mr & Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor.

Let’s see how much interest they are to the world as a B list actress, from a dysfunctional family, married to low ranked retired army officer.

The Queen can remove the HRH bit.....but it would take an Act of Parliament to remove the Dukedom. So, alas, it’s not going to happen.

[newcastle]

Well.....from the reports I’ve seen so far, it’s going to be a terribly boring 2 hour watch!

Basically, Meghan admits she had no idea what being a member of the Royal Family entailed, that she was told to respond “ no comment” to everything and that the palace would “ support her”.

By support, she seems to have assumed they would leap to her defence when she was criticised, or respond to media gossip etc. She seems to have fundamentally misunderstood that the “ no comment” directive applies in both directions. She’s obviously not too bright.

Oh...and the Duchess of Cambridge made her cry over some spat about the bridesmaids dresses at her wedding. Boo hoo. Aren’t most weddings a bit stressful?

Apparently, she’s a bit miffed that her son Archie Isn’t a prince. ....again showing her ignorance of royal protocol. To be a prince of the blood you have to be a child or grandchild (in the male line) of the monarch. In 2012 the Queen extended this to the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. That’s the current situation.

The Queen would have had to make special provision ( via Letters Patent) for Harry’s offspring to be princes/princesses.

They will automatically become so, when Charles ascends the throne, as grandchildren of the monarch in the male line.....although, if they are so p*ssed off at the royal family, perhaps the Sussexes should follow the example of Prince Edward’s offspring and decline to use the prince/ princess honorific for their children.

What seems to have been at the root of many of their gripes is the requirement - insisted on by the Queen - that they had to be “in or out” ....no half and halves.And out means foregoing having your home and security paid for by the state. A huge amount in their case...particularly if they were going to spend much time abroad.

They’ll need every penny of the millions they are rumoured to being paid.

Faced with the same choice a few years ago, Princess Margaret opted to keep the privileges of being royal. The Sussexes can afford to do without. Let’s hope Prince Harry is fulfilled and happy with his new life...estranged, to some degree, from his UK family.

Otherwise.....nowt of earth-shattering significance.

[crewmeal]

If all what she said was true why the hell did she marry into the family. My guess is she wanted the fame and title to go with her profile. She got both but not the way she wanted.

Didn't anyone including Harry go through the positives and negatives of being a Royal? It seems not.

[newcastle]

Didn't anyone including Harry go through the positives and negatives of being a Royal? It seems not.

That’s one of the more curious aspects of this saga. I remember reading articles about her saying how her friends had warned her!

And, with what Harry saw his mother endure, you’d think he was well placed to at least warn her of what she was getting into.

I think you’re right in that she was influenced by the “ glamour” of being a princess ( not that she is, technically) whilst I can only think that he was thinking more of the gorgeous bit of crumpet he’d pulled

A huge issue seems to be the allegation that a member of the royal family questioned how “ dark skinned” Meghan’s baby would be. That sounds like Phil the Greek

P.S. Normally I have no time for Piers Morgan but his demolition of the garrulous pair, on breakfast TV this morning, was nothing short of masterful.

P.P.S. I’m no fan of Meghan.....but you probably gathered that

[newcastle]

One more observation.

What was the point of making unsubstantiated accusations against unnamed people....people who they know cannot, or will not, respond?

What purpose does it serve....apart from any satisfaction the Sussexes feel in having their say, trashing the institution of the Royal family and earning a few more millions for their “ project”.

Appears very distasteful to me.....whether or not there’s any truth in what they assert....and will only serve to polarise public opinion.

Megxit is indeed like Brexit.

[BBLUX]

I will be watching...glue set or maybe paint dry. Have not decided yet.

[HEPZIBAH]

I find it a bit frustrating that if we have to hear on side of the story we can't hear both, in a like for like manner.

Imagine if you will, an Oprah Winfrey interview - same style - but with a couple of representatives from the royal family.

There are two sides to every story.

I would also be interested to know what 'schooling' and preparatry advice and information Ms Markle received before initially committing herself to join the royal family.

I'm not sure if I'll watch the interview or not, but so far 'me thinks she doth protest too much'.

[newcastle]

I would also be interested to know what 'schooling' and preparatry advice and information Ms Markle received before initially committing herself to join the royal family.

Not a lot by all accounts

Harry had to remind her that she needed to curtsy when he was about to introduce her to the Queen for the first time.

And how she managed to get that far without having Googled the Princess Diana saga beggars belief. In fact, she’s old enough to have taken it all in as a schoolgirl. Come to think of it...Meghan bleating about suicidal thoughts and self harm has more than an echo of Diana, her bulimia etc. Mmmmm.....

And the enquiry about Archie’s likely skin tone is nothing to what a Harry has had to suffer with regard to his hair colour....and parentage!

Meghan’s a consummate actress ....and this her finest performance.

[newcastle]

D550F007-AA13-479F-9BEC-66B6EE916016.jpeg

[HEPZIBAH]

I find it a bit frustrating that if we have to hear on side of the story we can't hear both, in a like for like manner.

Darn it!
I've made another spelling error and again missed an 'e' off a word.
Eeee... what'll become of me?

Meanwhile, the Markle show is proving divisive and interesting - in a certain manner - even before it has been aired on the UK television.

[newcastle]

Having watched the interview, I can only assume Meghan is suffering from some kind of post natal depression....maybe linked to her miscarriage. I’d prefer to think of it this way rather than condemn her as a manipulative fraud.

She clearly misunderstood whatever she heard about the question of Archie being denied the title of prince.

The question of security is inexorably linked to whether or not they are working royals. It was withdrawn when they announced their intention to quit.

Focussing on the issue of Archie’s skin tone highlights a contradiction. According to Harry, the conversation in question took place before they were married. Obviously a crass remark......but we’re not told the context. Meghan seems to have re- engineered the matter to suit her agenda.

The whole tenor of the interview was to paint the “firm” as institutionally racist and resentful of an American divorcee entering the family....despite the fact she was surrounded by personal staff of her own choosing.

The claim of being denied psychological assistance when she said she felt suicidal makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t believe a word of it. She’s a feisty American. Where was Harry in all this?

In fairness, some elements of the press have indulged in the most outrageous character assassination and there has been the usual vitriol from internet trolls. I think this is par for the course for celebrities. Meghan resented the fact that the palace didn’t respond and defend. But this is what they do....maintain silence.

As far as I’m concerned, she has failed monumentally to make her case.

“We did every we could to protect them” says Meghan at the end on the interview, regarding how they managed their withdrawal from the firm. Yeah right....!! What planet is she on, thinking this interview is anything but a hatchet job?

I hope the royal family treats this extraordinary outburst with the contempt it deserves and maintains total silence.

As far as Harry’s contribution is concerned, I thought he came across as a bit dim....reliving the problems his mother faced. He seems to have some idea that there’s a secret deal between the palace and the tabloids! Pure fantasy. His belief that he and Meghan are entitled to security ( at the state’s expense) simply because he’s a royal prince is the ultimate delusion....as was his statement “ I was trapped. My father and brother are trapped”

I’d love to be “trapped” in this way Bring it on!!

[crewmeal]

That sounds like Phil the Greek

I originally thought that given previous one-liners, but now my money is on Charles. If this is true then I guess he'll become very unpopular. To be honest the thought of him eventually becoming King horrifies me. But that's for another discussion.

[newcastle]

That sounds like Phil the Greek

I originally thought that given previous one-liners, but now my money is on Charles. If this is true then I guess he'll become very unpopular. To be honest the thought of him eventually becoming King horrifies me. But that's for another discussion.

Seriously....can you imagine any close relative of Harry saying - to his face - “ have you thought about what colour your kids might be?”

It’s totally unbelievable!

According to Harry, this “conversation “ took place before they were even married so my best guess is that it might have been William , counselling his brother on the potential perils of marrying ( after a whirlwind courtship) an American actress who had no experience of what being a royal meant. How the tabloids would make a meal of her colour etc etc.

Meghan then took the conversation out of context, reassigned it to a later period, conflated it with the title/ security nonsense....and, hey presto, the palace are a bunch of racists!

Apparently, Harry didn’t take too well to any “warnings “ his brother might have sounded...being too much in love (whatever that means ....to quote someone else)

[crewmeal]

On another point, we found out that they were married 3 days prior to the big one. So in essence the big one was fake and just a show for the world to see. I reckon if the world knew they got married before then it would be a big turn off. A £30m+ show paid for by the taxpayers.

On a legal note i didn't realise you could get married twice in those circumstances. perhaps someone with more knowledge could explain?

[carrie]

A farce from start to finish, the last American divorcee, married twice before like Megan, caused nothing but trouble when joining the Royal Family.
Get shut of the pair of them whingeing, whining twosome.
Me, me, me in the middle of a global pandemic, feel sorry for those poor families, stuck in an high rise, not enough money and kids running round unable to go out and play. Think about their mental health.

[HEPZIBAH]

On another point, we found out that they were married 3 days prior to the big one. So in essence the big one was fake and just a show for the world to see. I reckon if the world knew they got married before then it would be a big turn off. A £30m+ show paid for by the taxpayers.

On a legal note i didn't realise you could get married twice in those circumstances. perhaps someone with more knowledge could explain?

Apparently they did not actually get married three days before the big event. They (she) decided the wedding ceremony wasn't really about them but more a public show so wanted their own little private thing that was all about them. They called in the Archbishop of Canterbury and gave their vows before him. Why they would need him there, and not just be able to share their vows together I cannot imagine.
The actual marriage took place...I assume they mean the legal signing of the certificate...during the big public day.

Megan, it appears does not know the difference between a wedding ceremony and a legal marriage ceremony where I have always understood you require witnesses. (Although I could be wrong on the legalities too as I've not checked them for accuracy. )

[newcastle]

Megan, it appears does not know the difference between a wedding ceremony and a legal marriage ceremony where I have always understood you require witnesses. (Although I could be wrong on the legalities too as I've not checked them for accuracy. )

They exchanged vows a few days before the big ceremony. They could have done this in the bathroom. Who cares? Another poke at the “institution” and the ecstatic crowds on the day perhaps? They were hardly going to say anything beforehand and imperil the £30 million or so the wedding cost.

Megan does not know a lot of things.....and the Trumpian phrase “alternative facts” keeps popping into my mind for some reason.

[hatusu]

That sounds like Phil the Greek

I originally thought that given previous one-liners, but now my money is on Charles. If this is true then I guess he'll become very unpopular. To be honest the thought of him eventually becoming King horrifies me. But that's for another discussion.

It was said by a very famous astrologer of the time who drew up a chart for Charles when he was born in 1948, and he said Charles will never be King. Many other astrologers agreed.

[newcastle]

I know it’s a bit off topic....but I think Charles will make an OK king. It’s really a totally ceremonial post nowadays and, although he has some unconventional views, there’s little harm he can, or would, do. He will be the longest serving Prince of Wales by a long way...so he knows his way around the palace.

Most importantly, 10 or 15 years of King Charles will allow William’s family to grow up with hands-on parenting.