# Harry and Meghan had perfect platform for their ambitions, but royal life didn't pay enough



## OldSolduer (9 Mar 2021)

My wife is a Royal watcher and she hates Meghan M.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Mar 2021)

I’m adding that Meghan is viewed much like YokonOno was when the Beatles broke up.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Mar 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> I’m adding that Meghan is viewed much like YokonOno was when the Beatles broke up.


Except John Lennon didn’t see the music industry hound his mother to her death...


----------



## lenaitch (9 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> I think the royal family is on a downward slide that will accelerate when the Queen packs it in.
> 
> 🍻


As much as I support our (and I suppose, by extension, the UK's) form of constitutional monarchy government or, more importantly, what it would put our country through to change it,  I fear you are right.


----------



## FSTO (9 Mar 2021)

Nothing good happens when a Royal gets involved with an American woman.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Mar 2021)

FSTO said:


> Nothing good happens when a Royal gets involved with an American woman.


Duchess of Windsor I presume


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2021)

I find it odd that this is playing out on political lines right now in the US media.  The right wing media seems to be supporting the royal family and left wing media seems to be supporting Harry and Meghan.

I don’t get it but I suspect the whole “racist” / “not racist” thing is what is at play in the US.


----------



## Kilted (9 Mar 2021)

I was annoyed when I had to work and missed their wedding.  I'm over it now.  He never should have married her.  I suspect that arranged marriages to third cousins are starting to look a little bit better now.


----------



## mariomike (9 Mar 2021)

Kilted said:


> I suspect that arranged marriages to third cousins are starting to look a little bit better now.


I suspect that Ancestry.com may become the royal dating site of choice.


----------



## Weinie (9 Mar 2021)

We are truly at the apex of the hierarchy of needs when this issue gets any oxygen.


----------



## Kilted (9 Mar 2021)




----------



## Furniture (9 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Nope they'll have a bevy of staffers "leak" stories to a fawning press.
> 
> 🍻


Much like the former royals are telling their side to a fawning US media... They appear to want to be celebrity's not royals, and that's cool, but they seem to be going about it in a very polarizing way.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Mar 2021)

Junior royals have freedom of choice, just like everyone else. If you want out, you're all the way out, and there are consequences for that choice. Now the chickens have come to roost, they want to burn down the house they up till recently enjoyed sleeping in.


----------



## mariomike (9 Mar 2021)

mariomike said:


> I'm about as concerned for those two doing the Oprah show in Hollywood as I am about Champ and Major getting kicked out of Washington.








daftandbarmy said:


> Large nuclear cloud rising over the UK right now, I'd wager....
> 
> 
> 
> ​


----------



## FJAG (9 Mar 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> Junior royals have freedom of choice, just like everyone else. If you want out, you're all the way out, and there are consequences for that choice. Now the chickens have come to roost, they want to burn down the house they up till recently enjoyed sleeping in.


Yeah but in what part of the constitution does it say that? It's a flexible little family that can make up those kind of rules as it goes along. Just take a look at the differing degrees of "participation" there is by the various members of the royal family as it sits now. When is the last time someone has seen Princess Anne's kids doing any heavy lifting.

I'm not holding a candle for Meghan here but Harry's connection to the military was a solid benefit for the family which alone should have been enough to cut him some slack.

It's pretty obvious that some folks--by which I mean amongst the myriad of courtiers and handlers in the Establishment--got their noses out of joint. My guess is that there are probably more petty jealousies and rivalries amongst the many aides then within the family itself (although IMHO Charles has been a d*ck for a considerable period of time) and that these have made their axe grinding a very public issue in the ever receptive Brit press.

🍻


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Yeah but in what part of the constitution does it say that? It's a flexible little family that can make up those kind of rules as it goes along. Just take a look at the differing degrees of "participation" there is by the various members of the royal family as it sits now. When is the last time someone has seen Princess Anne's kids doing any heavy lifting.
> 
> I'm not holding a candle for Meghan here but Harry's connection to the military was a solid benefit for the family which alone should have been enough to cut him some slack.
> 
> ...


As far as I know, axes weren't out for these two till they told the family business they wanted out, and started shit chucking. Yes, he was in the military. So have royals since there have been royals. Don't get me wrong, his service and his charity work is exemplary. he's a great guy, it doesn't mean everything he does is great. It just strikes me as odd that he happily plugged away at the shit job of being a prince until he married wotsername, then all of a sudden it was too much. IMHO, the fam should just tell them to fuck all the way off and live the free, private, non public life they asked for.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Mar 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> As far as I know, axes weren't out for these two till they told the family business they wanted out, and started shit chucking. Yes, he was in the military. So have royals since there have been royals. Don't get me wrong, his service and his charity work is exemplary. he's a great guy, it doesn't mean everything he does is great. It just strikes me as odd that he happily plugged away at the shit job of being a prince until he married wotsername, then all of a sudden it was too much. IMHO, the fam should just tell them to fuck all the way off and live the free, private, non public life they asked for.



I think they tried that already but, like the weird relative that won't leave the basement suite, there's too much money to be made from playing 'frenemy'.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I think they tried that already but, like the weird relative that won't leave the basement suite, there's too much money to be made from playing 'frenemy'.


Ding, ding, ding!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!


----------



## CBH99 (10 Mar 2021)

The UK press was incredibly unfair and, in my opinion, blatantly racist towards the young lady.  And one thing we are consistently reminded of me that a lot of people are told what their opinion should be, and then spout whatever that is as if it truly is their own opinion.  Piers Morgan is a good example -- he will say whatever nonsense he does, and a certain segment of society will believe that & run with it, regardless of it's factuality.

Things must've been pretty unpleasant for them to even have to talk about the skin tone of their baby - that shouldn't be a conversation people should even have to have, especially in modern times - and leave a life of guaranteed wealth & protection.  


0.02


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Mar 2021)

CBH99 said:


> The UK press was incredibly unfair and, in my opinion, blatantly racist towards the young lady.  And one thing we are consistently reminded of me that a lot of people are told what their opinion should be, and then spout whatever that is as if it truly is their own opinion.  Piers Morgan is a good example -- he will say whatever nonsense he does, and a certain segment of society will believe that & run with it, regardless of it's factuality.
> 
> Things must've been pretty unpleasant for them to even have to talk about the skin tone of their baby - that shouldn't be a conversation people should even have to have, especially in modern times - and leave a life of guaranteed wealth & protection.
> 
> ...



Pot, meet kettle.... Harry's had his own issues with racism:


Video nasty: Prince Harry faces racism inquiry over footage of 'Paki' remark​
Prince Harry faces the prospect of what in polite army circles is called an interview without coffee - and in less polite ones "a bit of a bollocking" - over video footage in which he called a fellow cadet at Sandhurst a "Paki" and another a "raghead".

The extracts, much of which the prince shot himself, appeared to be his latest successful attempt to shoot himself in the foot. The remarks, which were splashed in the News of the World yesterday, were roundly condemned by politicians and some British Muslim spokesmen.









						Video nasty: Prince Harry faces racism inquiry over footage of 'Paki' remark
					

Condemnation for use of 'offensive' terms, including calling a cadet 'raghead', results in apology




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Furniture (10 Mar 2021)

CBH99 said:


> The UK press was incredibly unfair and, in my opinion, blatantly racist towards the young lady.  And one thing we are consistently reminded of me that a lot of people are told what their opinion should be, and then spout whatever that is as if it truly is their own opinion.  Piers Morgan is a good example -- he will say whatever nonsense he does, and a certain segment of society will believe that & run with it, regardless of it's factuality.
> 
> Things must've been pretty unpleasant for them to even have to talk about the skin tone of their baby - that shouldn't be a conversation people should even have to have, especially in modern times - and leave a life of guaranteed wealth & protection.
> 
> ...


It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data. 

As to skin tone, the context of the conversation matters. Was it a casual questioning of what the baby's complexion would be, just like other people wonder about eye colour, hair colour, etc., or was it actually a racist "I hope the child looks white"? To my knowledge the context of the comment wasn't given, which means based on our own perceptions of the people involved we draw conclusions... If you dislike the royals then it was obviously intentionally racist, but if you question the motivations of people who say they want to live a private life, yet do an Oprah interview, it casts some doubt on the situation. 

Could it have been genuinely racist as alluded to? Absolutely yes. Could it have been an innocent question born of genuine curiosity? Absolutely yes.


----------



## CBH99 (10 Mar 2021)

Furniture said:


> It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data.
> 
> As to skin tone, the context of the conversation matters. Was it a casual questioning of what the baby's complexion would be, just like other people wonder about eye colour, hair colour, etc., or was it actually a racist "I hope the child looks white"? To my knowledge the context of the comment wasn't given, which means based on our own perceptions of the people involved we draw conclusions... If you dislike the royals then it was obviously intentionally racist, but if you question the motivations of people who say they want to live a private life, yet do an Oprah interview, it casts some doubt on the situation.
> 
> Could it have been genuinely racist as alluded to? Absolutely yes. Could it have been an innocent question born of genuine curiosity? Absolutely yes.


Very fair point, well said.

I actually don't really like, or dislike, the royals.  I'm pretty apathetic either way.

Context absolutely matters, and very fair point you made indeed.


----------



## lenaitch (10 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Just take a look at the differing degrees of "participation" there is by the various members of the royal family as it sits now. When is the last time someone has seen Princess Anne's kids doing any heavy lifting.
> 
> 
> 🍻



I don't think Peter and Zara Phillips (Anne's kids) are considered 'working royals'; i.e. on the 'civil list' as receiving a public income.


CBH99 said:


> The UK press was incredibly unfair and, in my opinion, blatantly racist towards the young lady.  And one thing we are consistently reminded of me that a lot of people are told what their opinion should be, and then spout whatever that is as if it truly is their own opinion.  Piers Morgan is a good example -- he will say whatever nonsense he does, and a certain segment of society will believe that & run with it, regardless of it's factuality.
> 
> Things must've been pretty unpleasant for them to even have to talk about the skin tone of their baby - that shouldn't be a conversation people should even have to have, especially in modern times - and leave a life of guaranteed wealth & protection.
> 
> ...


The British tabloid press can be pretty unfair to anybody they set their sights on.


----------



## Furniture (10 Mar 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Very fair point, well said.
> 
> I actually don't really like, or dislike, the royals.  I'm pretty apathetic either way.
> 
> Context absolutely matters, and very fair point you made indeed.


I'm much like you in that I generally don't care one way or another about the personal lives of royals/celebrities, but this drama has me scratching my head.

It's easy to not like either side in this, as both have potentially done horrible things. 

We recently went through having someone who was beloved by the public investigated for abuses of her staff, and the results of the investigation were pretty damning. It is quite possible that the Dutchess(not Archer) was abusive towards her staff, as alleged by her staff. Maybe her staff were emboldened to come forward by the success of the investigation into our own Vice Regal.  At the very least the accusations against her should bear as much weight as the accusations against the "Firm", and both sets of accusations are shockingly close to one another, which means either side could be looking to cover up past transgressions.


----------



## mariomike (11 Mar 2021)

Seeing Harry do a heart to heart with Oprah reminded me of this.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Mar 2021)

Furniture said:


> It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data.


Then it's also possible that different people saw the same things and reached different conclusions to each other.  This is from about a year ago, well before the Oprah latest, showing different interpretations of similar situations between 2 royal wives:  *"Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life"*


----------



## Furniture (11 Mar 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> Then it's also possible that different people saw the same things and reached different conclusions to each other.  This is from about a year ago, well before the Oprah latest, showing different interpretations of similar situations between 2 royal wives:  *"Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life"*


Is racism the only explanation for the differences?

Couldn't have anything to do with one being American, and the other British. Couldn't have anything to do with one eventually becoming the Queen, while the other will always be a Duchess? There are sometimes a few years between headlines, and in those intervening years attitudes toward certain topics may have shifted in society. Could it potentially be something as simple as the fact that some people are resentful that the "most eligible bachelor" in the world was taken? On top of all of that, she is a divorced American actor. The royals have never had an issue with anyone like that in the past... 

I have no doubt that racism may have had some impact on some of the reporting, but I also allow for the fact that other factors may have been just as/more influential on the tone of reporting.

I get why they wanted out of the realm of the British tabloid press, I would never hold that against anyone. Just don't ask me to feel bad for you when you go to the American tabloid press to get back into the public eye.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Mar 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> Then it's also possible that different people saw the same things and reached different conclusions to each other.  This is from about a year ago, well before the Oprah latest, showing different interpretations of similar situations between 2 royal wives:  *"Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life"*


What’s the difference between this and when Sarah Ferguson was failing miserably in the pop charts against her much loved paragon of ALL the virtues sister in law? The press plays favourites, not everyone gets the trophy, no matter how much we all deserve it.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2021)

Furniture said:


> I get why they wanted out of the realm of the British tabloid press, I would never hold that against anyone. Just don't ask me to feel bad for you when you go to the American tabloid press to get back into the public eye.


You win my vote here. Let's not forget that Meghan M is an actor by trade. How much is real and how much is well rehearsed lines.


----------



## mariomike (13 Mar 2021)

Outrage over magazine cover of Queen kneeling over Meghan's neck like George Floyd.

WARNING: Disturbing image.









						Fury over magazine cover of Queen kneeling on Meghan's neck like George Floyd
					

WARNING DISTURBING IMAGE: The controversial publication has sparked outrage again with its latest edition, which features a disturbing caricature of the Queen that recreates Mr Floyd's death at the hands of a police officer




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Mar 2021)

That's horrible.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> That's horrible.


But it sells   

And let's see how many people who defended Hebdo for publishing Mohammed pix step up now in support of "freedom of the press" and against "cancel culture" over this ...


----------



## Weinie (13 Mar 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> But it sells
> 
> And let's see how many people who defended Hebdo for publishing Mohammed pix step up now in support of "freedom of the press" and against "cancel culture" over this ...


Let's hope that a bunch of radical Meghan Markle fans don't kill Charlie Hebdo journalists.


----------



## FJAG (13 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> Let's hope that a bunch of radical Meghan Markle fans don't kill Charlie Hebdo journalists.


Why would they? Seems like it's the Royalists who would be upset by this.

🤔


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Why would they? Seems like it's the Royalists who would be upset by this.
> 
> 🤔




Then there's the 'invisible contract' between the press and the Royals. It would seem that Megs and Hank stepped outside of that and, like any good Mafia protection racket-like arrangement, there are consequences:

Harry and Meghan: What's the media's 'invisible contract' with British royalty?​And then there are informal arrangements, such as the so-called "pressure cooker agreement", where the paparazzi would leave Prince William and Harry alone during their education, "in return for intermittent occasions when they would be invited to staged photograph opportunities" - such as Prince William's 18th birthday at Eton College.









						Harry and Meghan: What's the media's 'invisible contract' with British royalty?
					

Prince Harry spoke of an "invisible contract" between his family and media - what does it involve?



					www.bbc.com


----------



## mariomike (22 May 2021)

They said on the news that he was back on Oprah, again. That's not for me to judge.

But, as a kid, my heroes were cowboys. Pretty hard to imagine, for me at least, the likes of John Wayne going on her show to commiserate about his "feelings".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data.
> 
> As to skin tone, the context of the conversation matters. Was it a casual questioning of what the baby's complexion would be, just like other people wonder about eye colour, hair colour, etc., or was it actually a racist "I hope the child looks white"? To my knowledge the context of the comment wasn't given, which means based on our own perceptions of the people involved we draw conclusions... If you dislike the royals then it was obviously intentionally racist, but if you question the motivations of people who say they want to live a private life, yet do an Oprah interview, it casts some doubt on the situation.
> 
> Could it have been genuinely racist as alluded to? Absolutely yes. Could it have been an innocent question born of genuine curiosity? Absolutely yes.


My wife is very dark skinned (south Indian) and I am very fair (Scots) so discussions of our kids skin colour was quite the topic and my wife had a dream just before birth that she would come out looking like a spotted cow. I had to tell her that the kid did not look like a cow, the nearby nurse was confused   Cracking skin colour jokes are very common in our household with 4 different varieties.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 May 2021)

mariomike said:


> They said on the news that he was back on Oprah, again. That's not for me to judge.
> 
> But, as a kid, my heroes were cowboys. Pretty hard to imagine, for me at least, the likes of John Wayne going on her show to commiserate about his "feelings".


Fake cowboys, or real cattlemen/ranch hands?

John Wayne...meh...he was just an actor, you know, like Meghan...he did the exact same back in the day, for what outlets were available.

I liked the Jimmy Stewarts and Clarke Gables of the acting world of time...


----------



## mariomike (22 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Fake cowboys, or real cattlemen/ranch hands?


Weren't too many that were authentic. Ben Johnson and Slim Pickens were.

Gary Cooper was a good horseman from Montana.





> I liked the Jimmy Stewarts and Clarke Gables of the acting world of time...



Pretty hard, for me at least, to imagine Jimmy or Clark doing her show - if it had been on the air back then.

Not that there would have been anything wrong with that, of course.

To his credit, Gene Autry flew "the Hump" during the war. And Audie Murphy was in a lot of westerns, after the war.

Like the old song, "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott?"

I think it refers to the "strong silent" types. Seems, again to me least, they are in rather short supply these days.

( Scott served in the U.S. Army in France in* World War 1. )*


----------



## FSTO (23 May 2021)

The Duke owned a working Cattle Ranch in Arizona - Bar 26 Ranch

I remember when my dad would get the American Hereford Association Journal and the Bar 26 Ranch was a regular advertiser. In their ad the Duke and his ranch partner pictures were always in the banner.









						John Wayne Once Owned a Large Cattle Ranch: Take a Tour of the Spectacular Property
					

John Wayne and a cattle ranch. Those two things go together about as well as peanut butter and jelly, a burger and fries, and bacon and eggs.




					outsider.com


----------

